HomeMy WebLinkAboutOld Civic Center Site Project - Request For Proposal - Deve IP
r
Owl
palm ROM41
�Cy�► ��a��'rfil+7�� S.rii
dim
mg LM
w
izc
• r •
• • 7
•
City of Huntington Beach
•� CALIFORNIA 92648� P.O.- BOX t90
OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
April '16, 1979
Mr. Brian Norkaitis, Project Manager
The William Lyon. Company
366 San Miguel Drive, Suite_ 201
Newport Beach, California 9266G
Subject: Senior Citizen Housing on Old Civic Center Site
Dear Mr. Norkaitis:
It is my pleasure to inform you ,that on April 2, 1979, the City
Council selected your firm as the developer of the subject project
(.see attached minutes) . In addition, your selection constitutes
the City' s intention to_ negotiate on an exclusive basis with your
firm for the lease of the portion of the site to be devoted to
senior housing. The anticipated term of this lease is 55 years.
Congratulations on your selection and we . look forward to working
with you and the other members of your development team in the
months ahead.
very truly yours,
Floyd G. . Belsito
City Administrator
cc: Reed Flory
y
Telephone (714) 536-5201
MINUTES
Room B-8, Civic Center
• !• Huntington Beach, California
Monday, April 2, 1979
A.tape recording of this meeting is
on file in the City Clerk's Office
Mayor Pattinson called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the
City. of Huntington Beach to order at 6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Yoder, MacAllister, Bailey, Thomas, Pattinson
Mandic _(arrived at 6:15 P.M.)
Absent: None
SENIOR HOUSING A RECREATION F CIA LITY %D CIVIC CENTER SITE- WM LYON CO -
PROPOSAL ACCEPTED
Steve Kohler, Senior Community Development Specialist, referred to a communication
from- the Acting Planning Director dated March 28, 1978 regarding the proposals
submitted by developers for the construction of a Senior Housing and Recreation
Facility at the old Civic _Center site. Mr. Kohler presented .background informa-
tion relative to the project and proposals.
Mr. Brian Norkatis, Project Manager, .Wm. Lyon Co., .presented a review of their
proposal and introduced Mr. John Cotton, KCV Architects, who displayed a graph
detailing their proposal. He stated that most .of the items incorporated in the
plan were. developed through experience with other similar projects. Discussion
was held between Council and Mr. Norkatis regarding aspects of the project such
.as parking facilities, size of units, and recreational facilities.
Mr. Gary Thompson, Vice President of Planning, Ring Brothers; presented a review
of their proposal and gave reasons why they. proposed conventional financing of the
project. He informed Council that their proposal included renovation of the. -
library. He introduced Mr. Vito Cetta, Vito .Cetta &Associates who displayed
graphs detailing their proposal. He reviewed the type of units planned .and the
amenities which would be provided to the residents. Discussion was held. between
the Council and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Cetta regarding various facets of their
proposal
The Acting Planning: Director reported on the matter, referring to the backup
material which had been provided to Council and the joint session minutes of the
Planning Commission at Redevelopment Commission. .
Mr. Joe Milkovich, Chairman of the Redevelopment Commission, addressed Council
and stated that the Redevelopment Commission favored the proposal submitted by
the William Lyon Company.
Page #2 - Council Minutes - 4/2/79
On motion by MacAllister, second Bailey,; Council approved the selection of the
William Lyon Company as the proposed developer for the Senior Housing and
Recreation Facility at the Old Civic Center Site and directed staff to proceed
withAhe.necessary steps. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandici Pattinson
NOES: None
ABSENT:. None
Councilman MacAllister requested that staff and William Lyon Company work toward
deVeloping .more. parking and providing for a senior's mbtorcart parking area with
. charge-up facility. j
ADJOURNMENT
The adjourned regular riveting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
was adjourned by the Mayor.
City Clerk and ex-OTT100 Ver
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
ATTESTt
City er /(tMayor
The foregoing instrumr,iit is a correct
copy of ch otiginai on file in this office.
Attest
City Clerk anii b. v;fii i'�Clerf;of iiie'. y
Councii of the City of Huntin{ iun Bach,
Ca i.
(deputy
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Submitted by Tames W. Palin Department Development Services
Date Prepared March 28 , 19 79 Backup Material Attached f'� Yes X] No
Subject Selection of Proposal; Senior Housing and Recreation Facility
on old Civic Center Site
City Administrator's Comments
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Planning and Redevelopment Commissions met in joint session
on February 27 and March 13, 1979 , to review proposals submitted
for the Senior Housing and Recreation Facility on the old Civic
Center site. At the latter meeting, the Commissions recommended
the Wm. Lyon Co, and Ring Bros. Corp, proposals for the City Council ' s
consideration. It is now time to select the proposal to be implemented
on the old Civic. Center site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Select the proposal and. development team most appropriate for the
old Civic Center site and authorize staff to negotiate with the
selected proponent on finalizing the physical aspects of the proposal
and authorize the City Attorney to commence lease agreement negoti-
ations with the proponent, and grant a period of 60 calendar days
to complete these tasks. In addition, authorize. staff to initiate
the requirement amendment to the . Zoning Ordinance to permit the
implementation of this project.
ANALYSIS:
The original request for proposal, staff analysis , and Planning and
Redevelopment Commissions' recommendations were previously trans-
mitted to the Council . The Commissions ' recommendations were:
First Choice: The Wm. Lyon Co.
Second Choice: Ring Bros. Corp.
The Commissions also requested that the Council be made aware that
the Commissions expressed a strong preference for the Wm. Lyon Co.
proposal. This preference is based both upon the physical character-
PIO 3/78 ��
+ Request for City Council Action
old Civic Center Site Proposal
Page 2
istics and financing mechanisms included in this proposal. The
propoments of both the Wm. Lyon Co. and Ring Bros. . proposals will.
be present on. April 2, 1979, to make a brief presentation to the
Council and to respond to questions from the Council.
The suggested order of action for April 2 , 1979 , is as follows:
1.. Staff Review of Project to Date.
2. Proponent Presentations: . a. Wm. Lyon Co.
b. Ring Bros. Corp.
(Each proponent should be permitted to make a presentation while
the other proponent waits outside the meeting room. )
3. Council Discussion. .
4 . Council Action to Select . Proposal.
The graphic displays prepared by each proponent are on display in
the Planning Department for the inspection of Council members . Staff
will, of course, be available prior to the April 2 , 1979 , meeting
to answer the specific questions of Council members.
ALTERNATIVES:
Without Council selection of a proposal and authorization of Staff as
stated in the above recommendation, the project can not move forward.
FUNDING SOURCE:
U. S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Housing and Community
Development Program: $ 550,000
City Funds: 100,000 (for library improvements not yet
committed by Council)
$ 6501000
R spectfully submitted,
d
ames W. Palin
Acting Planning Director
JWP:SVK: s
CITY OF Hun .TinGTon BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
:..., • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
FROM: - Stephen V. Kohler i.or .Community Development Specialist
DATE: March 19, 1979. � � �
SUBJECT: SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING AND RECREATION FACILITY
ON OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
On March 13, 1979, the Planning and Redevelopment .Commission's
in joint session recommended the following proposals on the .
subject matter for the Council' s consideration:
First choice: The William Lyon Company
Second choice: Ring Brothers Corporation
By separate transmittal the Council has been asked" to establish
a date (March 26, 1979) for the consideration of these two
proposals. To assist the Council in the consideration of these
proposals, attached are the following documents.
1) The original request for proposal packet, along with all
supplemental information transmitted to proponents
(salmon attachment) .
2) Summary of all thirteen proposals received by the deadline
of .December 22, 1978 (white attachment) .
3) Memo from Urban Projects, Inc. ; March 7, 1979 regarding financing
mechanism (blue attachment) .
4) Planning Commission Staff report of March 13; 1979 , with expanded
summary of four proposals and Staff narrative (buff attachment) .
In addition, the graphic displays prepared by the two recommended
proponents will be on display in the Planning Department until
just prior to the Council ' s special meeting.
The project team of both the William Lyon Company, and Ring Brothers
Corporation have been advised to attend the special Council meeting
to make a brief presentation and to ;respond to the questions of the
Council members. Council members ma.y also contact Messers. Stephen
V. Kohler or Pat Tessier at 536-5541 with any questions prior to the
special meeting of the Council.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RrQUP:ST_ FOR PROPOSALS
SENIOR CITI7. EN HOUSING
This is a request for proposals for conceptual architectural drawings
and financial feasibility statements for the construction and operation
of a senior citizens housing' development, Full-service senior citizens
center, an exterior improvement and re-landscaping of the existing or pro-
vision of new branch library, and limited service commercial on the Old
Civic Center. Site in downtown Huntington Beach. The details of each of
these elements of the proposal are described below, along with a budget
for site improvements.
The goal of this proposal is to combine the City' s Housing and Community
.Development, .General Fund , and Section 8 (lousing Assistance resources
with those of private enterprise to provide a comprehensive housing,
recreation, social and cultural center for senior citizens . To accomplish
this goal the City of Huntington Beach will:
1. Demolish existing buildings on site $60, 000
(except library)
2. Fully improve the site for construction $40, 000
3 . Provide funds for:
a. Construction of senior citizens center. . $305 , 000
b. Construction' of new library or improvements
to existing facility $100 , 000
$405 , 000
4 . Leas(, site to selected developer:
a. Lease terms $1. 00 per year
b. Estimated value of site: $906 , 000
In return, the selected developer will be obligated to do the following :
1. Design, finance, and construct approximately 200-300 one and two bedroom
senior citizen apartments on the site. '
2. Maintain and manage these units.
3 . Reserve a percentage of these units (20-50 percent depending on the
total number of units built) for certificate holders in the Sec.t• ion 8
Leased (lousing Assistance Program.
4. Design and construct with HCD funds, a Senior Center to be turned
over to the City upon completion.
1
\i 1
Wk t
5 . Design and construct with City funds improvements to the existing
library which shall continue to be managed and maintained by the
City ; or:
The developer' s option, a new, comparable library facility may be
provided but in no case will the City ' s contribution exceed
$100 , 000 , and the developer will be responsible for the cost of
demolition of the existing library . This option is offered to
provide the developer with the opportunity to more fully integrate ,.
library facilities in the development and offer greater flexibility
on site design.
6 . (Option) Design, finance , construct , and manage small scale
service commercial area on the site.
i
2
1. S
THE STTE
LOCATION: Between Sixth and Main Streets and Acacia and' Orange
Streets in downtown Huntington Beach (see map attached) .
USE:. The site , formerly used as the City' s Civic Center, con-
tains five municipal buildings and a number of temporary '
structures . The site includes a portion of the Pecan
Street right-of-way!, which is presently used for on-
site parking.
SIZE: Approximately 3. 64 gross acres
ZONING: Cr-C (Community Facilities - Civic Center User) This
zoning will revert to R3 & C3 upon discontinuance of
civic center use.
GENERAL PLAN: Planning Reserve (excluding Pecan St. right-of-way) .
UTILITIES: All major utilities are available to the site.
SERVICES: The Senior Citizens Recreation Center provides
recreational and social services for approximately
4000 seniors a month, and is currently located 2/3
miles from the project site, and will be relocated to
the old civic center as part of this proposal .
The beach and municipal pier are located approximately
four blocks from the site .
Bus service by Orange County Transit District is
available at the site.
The City Gym with pool and exercise equipment is
nine blocks from the site.
Major medical facilities are 2 miles from the site .
Some shopping facilities and major banking institutions
,.are available in the downtown area, however, major
shopping would require travel of approximately one mile.
3
r
THE PROJECT
No building conticjuration is specified, however, the following design
considerations must be followed:
A, Senior Citizen Housing
Project: The proposal calls for the construction of approximately
00-300 apartments for senior citizens in one or more buildings.
Most of these units should be one bedroom but some two-bedroom units
shall be provided for disabled and handicapped with live-in attendants.
The facility shall also include a full range of communal facilities.
(except eating) and shall be designed to provide for handicapped
accessibility to all facilities.
The project' should be oriented to maximize natural light
and ventilation in each unit and to maximize view potential .
Movement to, from and within the project should be convenient.
Each unit. should have a private outdoor space.
Indoor and outdoor common areas should be provided.
Provision of common use amenities such as security systems,
medical.* alarms, exercise facilities, gardening or outdoor
recreation facilities will enhance a proposal.
Project proposal should make use of the numerous specimen
size palms which presently exist on the site.
Funding : The construction and long-term financing of these units
would be the responsibility of the developer. In - return for the
lease of the property a-t a minimal cost the developer would agree
to reserve a share of these units (approximately 20-50 percent)
for certificate holders in the Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Program. The Housing Authority would have responsibility for ad-
ministering the subsidy payments. A provision of the lease agree-
ment would require that Section 8 units rent for no more than the
federally established Fair Market Rents for the Leased Housing
.Assistance Program (1 bedroom $220/mo, ; 2 bedroom $240/mo. ) & developers
are encouraged to submit rents below this level.
B. Senior Citizens Recreation Center
Project: To provide a full service senior citizens center (of
approximately 10, 000 sq. ft. ) to house the activities of the
current center at 17th and Orange plus the Transportation-Lunch-
Counseling -Program.
Senior Citizen Center would include meeting rooms, offices, a
kitchen, and outdoor and indoor recreation facilities.
Funding : To construct this center, HCD Funds programmed for im-
provements to the existing center should be reprogrammed to this
site and a portion of the funds programmed for site acquisition
for senior housing will also be reallocated (see attached Budget) .
a
C. Library Improvements
Project: Provide an exterior " .Bice lift" and relandscaping of
•thc existing library directed towards creating a uniform archi-
tectural treatment for the entire project, or, at the developer' s
option, provide a new comparable facility. The City' s contri-
bution to this phase .of development shall not exceed $100 , 000
and if a new facility is proposed, the developer would be responsi-
ble for the demolition of the existing library structure.
Funding: City funds would be requited for this project (see Budget) .
D. Commercial Space
Project: At the option of the developer, limited commercial lease
space may also be integrated into the proposal. design. The con-
struction of this optional facility would be thg responsibility
of the developer and the developer or management agent will have
responsibility for the leasing and management of the commercial
space.
Funding: The developer would be responsible for the financing of
th— i p oject and revenues from it may be used to underwrite the
costs of the - Senior Housing Project.
B. Option : The City will also receive proposals for the use of only
a portion of the site and these proposals may contain any or all of
the components described above. The submission of a proposal for
use' of only a share of the site is at the option of the developer
and developers are encouraged to submit more than one proposal.
5
� t
PROPOSAL CONTENTS
All proposal-s ;should bo "design/build" proposais; that is each proposal
should represent a physically sound and economically feasible project.
Each proposal should contain at minimum:
1. Preliminary Design
a. illustrative plot plan (showing building location, recreational
facilities, landscaping, walkways, parking)
b. 'elevations (rendering optional)
C. floor plan-of typical housing units , senior center and com-
mercial space, if any.
2. Preliminary Financial. Statement
a. A "Pro Forma", financial statement must accompany each proposal.
This shall include building and other improvement costs, projected
. revenues; and must document the necessity of the City' s financial
contribution for the production and rental of the housing units.
b. A maintenance and management plan for each element of the proposal
and the attendant costs must -be included.
c. A statement of the credentials of the developer including, previous
experience with similar projects and a financial status statement
must also be included.
h
OLD CIVIC CENTZA
REVISED HOUSING PROPOSAL
BDDMT
Cost source
l�. SITE PREPARATION
1. Demolition i Clearance of $ 600000 BCD Senior Housing Site
Memorial Hall, Fire Sta-
tion, Administration
Building, and Community
Clinic
2. Water and Sewer Improve- 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
meets
3. Grading and Landscape 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Alterations
Total Site Improvements $T010" HCD Senior Housing Site ?
8. NEN SENIOR CENTER
1. Construction of New $X508000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Facility 155,000 HCD Reprogram from
existing center
Total Center Costs $30,3ff
C. LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Building Alterations a 1100,00'0 City Funds
Landscape Improvements
2. Or Contribution of 'New 100 000 City Funds
Library
Total Library Costs $X001000 City Funds
Subtotal (4050000) HCD Funds
Subtotal (4006000) City Funds
GRAND TOTAL $505,000
/ 11
CI
t
i�
'24of
PECIW . i STREET
center
79
OLD CW CENTER SITE
huntington beach planning department
notes all palms are 3(rd6n.
301 b 3S' in
® y
22-0
W
•
19
44`® 8 block wall
OUT
• FIRE STATION
K 01'
I story fi ms Z story conaoN
® �.
z4f
PECAN AVENUE `
a.c. parking area'
N
I
OLD CMC CENTER srrE : NORTH
r j
PECAN AVENUE
�-- a. c. parking area
® &--2S
es
MEMORIAL HALL
2 story masonry/stucco
s,
82
W
a
25 tem � v-
31 tMl�el'f
X
vs grass area �.
CLINIC
' 1 story/gyp•
f
27
ORANGE AVENUE
Atft
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE : SOUTH
A`1111111�111111111111FZA
II III IM
I •
��� A i 11 11NII1fr
i N it IIIUN IINI II INI _
+IAw loll UNINUM011111110.
��' ��� � ' ►1..N.IINN.A.�S�IIq. r rlll
��lllglglpql IpIg011H1 p11Et11p111p1111� WNIII
. �c0 .,d I�AIdNiI IIN�b�U rbMN111 piwNAlAfl 111NI r I
�MH�IIMllltl t1pH11p NI { A1111p1 ANpp
t ailNllapA 111ANd1 �NNNNpN pIN IN INi1Np
(agp11g8 Hg1111gN 11g11f11 111111111 kIIIIil1�IQ1111N
IIIIIIINI INNINIHN NNlll 'III 'I INIUNIuI I
u1t111 1111111E MIiIgINI I 11111! !Ip luNl I�
Illllp� plllilll» 111 Ililllp� NIMII 'I M!p 1'li UR9Ik � �l
�,�a 11111t1U1i 11pIpIt11A 111N11NI NIr11 � N .p�� I
111 ININIAI dNllAllll NIIAIN N;�iIlNllpp�11gf; I
111 HMUI pllNNl! p 111111mmIKul
:� pEfiNl�Ui 1111111 1111 Ur��Nlllp iIUN pda Npl
ItN1 tM111M1 IIf11 1 1111111� NMMII IIIIIH1puN1gHl1 N
It1AllH1 INrli 111.111 NIIIIApIIp pIaNHlp IU
� 111g111 pNNdddl!�dNidllllN NI NNNIp ININ1Npp Mill
101"�N LWIP.111HUHiINi [110IIUAUa NNUI I H
II laN1NNa�'dYpdIiN111p1NNNNltiINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII UP
{IIIpRN—U�q k�llapp IpNApAQ� IIIINAIMId plppNl�ll q11
!;ilanali-��Ilip NNNNI! 11H1 t11N NNI
INIIANtllll IIaUNaNp Nql p IINN II INIIINgI Uil
Mp11111Mq MUNdk f'I 11 N1k Ill Ip NU ilp
�1�1NII UUtlAIINd III � �a�INA11 INII � aN!
�Am no
�US oil.
Hip.
NUNYIINN MIINNlll11 (� I i
NaIIIINIINII�aNNi1NNa _,_, _, ,. pll _ a ���
�N i Poll of �l u A@I� E l f Nommulaw
tug o
. ..
IIIA�IArlal l33111f I� i 10
t r �
0Nr11 dlinal II 0014 NgIIWI MINOR 1111
ri111dN 010how wool, HIIIIfUR NOW aft
m 1 1 1
lrllr IIINIIfd �IlNllla, 1wombil INN
AIA inn
A INDINNI4111/ �
.�tlIAI IwIMWIIIh.1� �
�rN� 1Mlalp� N ll�i
I � pEEN 1►�11�1M I A
� �aNglll pl 111fE1M ;pAll
`, �IA� INAIRI�NIIIIiMIIIIMq NA191 � - -
� /��,�����+�+ 1111pI11111111iY111Mlplq
\���rr,� �� .F9� IAp1111111 gRwgWlp MII/
�,��' glpNllplp E�IIIIIlq 1
111111910 1111pf:lMplr111111ilil aural
���������` INlAllllllE fIAIIAE�ii tUIHINAIM pE9R1111 ANI11
' n111AlElt1 1M�N1N 111ffIE9111 N18pIMp R1gdNN1 !lllpq
EIIINIIRNfl IpN1NNR A11 AAY ti111111R iiRIIgR1N Ii�EN
1111//11 ONO" WH1111 Illplfelgll 111N11p1 NIl1
1111mmillAl lia Hulot" I111111RN11MR1t go
I mNI;1ANIf�dA111f�II�IIN il11MI1bN j�IME�IEM MtNu
i11H1� NfHIEM1IR 1 AIIM INIIIMIN 1111RNMr !lilN
,,�tNl A RIMIRRgI 1111111N MIlINI1 NWt1�r♦U�.g11t1
III IlAllll 11111 IIIC 1BI 111A IIIINiIII H1iIIIIIINII IAllil
vp 1gVon 11"111I1 1111111111 Doi
"1 Mt Elplp Illrlll 1 10:01la '111nEHgllu 1101
�enl tI11IIfl11Rf1 IIIllllll 11111lp� ��gaanun apnNHNI, alp
imill R I A1Mllllli I1/i111 iiIIIIAHIIN NININIdN hill ig
ql 1111e11IM;•quagt111!�Hu11wInH NIHaNplp NHulnpn lau
1011 I1111"14IN1110 IIINutiIIIIH1111a hoillmdullihi NNIRI lldl
uuuauuHLiIIIIIUIIIIII�NIIIIHIIHI' NtlltiplllNlHll�gpl iH11 i
unuN!!�lu uuNu�uu tludnuuu lulud��p ulHlt ulu
151HHNIIH IIIIIIN1111q tplHpnHN tplllgan!! IIIIHIIIgIq III, � �
nlllHlnun uuauunu uub� uruldnd dduuuuu N�
uNutluNll utplpUHa auuppuP Iluq�nla udnwluu �
_ NRIINIIIIIIjUlldlllllld MNNHNtI, tIIgIN_dbd IlHlll�lir'•. IIIII �
IIIIHNIIIIII HIINgII{RI :IIIpIII1HN IIIIIIHIIIIII alll �
n1NINalU1 npfnNu„ w1manuillififfm 11111 Ohl
�pWIHHIfq upRllgNa�Wf H�', ggaaIIIIN agIAWfGi ►I!N � •
N,,,�;NIfIH NibiAnEln NEI �, NaflgWiA NgflHrdn NdI
HHaHnaq pupN11 AIgg1Up 11111NlIIIR dNIlMllltp sm
IIINIunuN uINiNAWI NlmnHdl+ IpIIINNtIa UIIIINIIIIII old
N! (11Eglq gIIINIHIIf Mllllpinpl HHHIIHIIII-NI
• JUNO III LA 01101111 dIIIIIIdIIN iIIIIIRIIIId` �1 � •
MINOR flf♦pglglp HIHItlNHI' Nil IIHI111N "ll 1101111111 lull �
1111111111011 fill
I�MMEIN NNAp1e�� IlUlltll I' 1111gIgIW 1g11g1M fill alll
1�NImi ll, 11I111""IHll m"A0,.
• CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH
J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
�� • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
J'
November 29, 1978
SUBJECT: SENIOR CITIZEN COMPLEX AT OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is the supplemental information packet
for the subject project including:
1 . ,Time Schedule for completion of Project;
2. Program Design for Senior Citizens Recreation Center;
and
3. Soils Investigation Report.
This completes the distribution of information regarding the
senior complex.
I would be pleased to meet with you to review the schematics
of your proposal. If you should wish to make an appointment
to do so, or if you should have any questions, please contact
me at (714) 536-5541.
Very truly ours,
.09
Stephen V. hler
Senior Co unity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
Enclosures (3)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HOUSING 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
OLD CIVIC CENTER
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
TIME SCHEDULE
September, 1978
Council approval of RFP (9/18/78)
. . Final preparation of RFP
Compilation of RFP distribution list
. Investigation of advertising
. Order site appraisal
October, 1978
• Meeting with City Departments (Library, Recreation Parke & Human
Services)
• Preparation of proposal review criteria
. Distribution of RFP
. Informational meetings with developers
November, 1978
. Proposal preparation period
• Arrange consultant economic review of proposals
. Initiation of General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
December, 1978
. Deadline for submission of proposals (December 22, 1978, 12:00 noon)
. Interdepartmental review of proposals (staff screening)
January, 1979
. Presentation of acceptable proposals to Redevelopment Commission
(developer presentations)
Formulation of Redevelopment Commission recommendations
. Initiation of EIR process and Zone Change
February. 1979
. Presentation of Redevelopment Commission recommendations to City
Council
Marsh - April, 1979
• Council selection of developer proposal
. Initiation of,.negotiation with developer for participation/lease
agreement
• Begin 60-day period for preparation of final proposal
` � 1
Page Two
May, 1979
. Council approval of participation/lease agreement, EIR,
and zoning
. Developer begins working drawings
June - September, 1979
Developer completes working drawings
October-- November, 1979
• Construction bid period
• Demolition of buildings on site
December. 1979
Council approval of contractor
January - September, 1980
. Construction period
October, 1980
Dedication and grand opening
t
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESIGN
SENIOR CITIZEN RECRUTION CENTER
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
As part of the new senior citizen complex to be located on
the City' s old Civic Center site will be a Senior Citizens
Recreation Center to replace the existing facility 'at 17th
Street and Orange Avenue. This new facility should encompass
approximately 10,000 square feet, and the program design for
the building is as follows:
1. Assembly Room
a. Seating capacity of approximately 400 at tables.
b., Operable walls to divide space into at least two,
preferably three smaller spaces.
c. Access to kitchen is necessary, and when operable
walls are closed one space should 'accommodate 80-100
people seated for lunch under the Transportation-Lunch-
Counseling (T-L-C) senior feeding program.
2. Kitchen
a. For use primarily for catered meals, coffees, teas,
but should permit serving of "pot luck" meals with
limited on-site preparation.
b. Two warming ovens, sink, and commercial refrigerator,
residential range/cook top.
c. Generous counter top work space and storage.
d. Access to assembly room and to outdoor space necessary.
3. Senior Outreach Program
This program provides a variety of social services to home-
bound seniors. The. emphasis of this program is service to
seniors at home, client contact does not occur at the
Center] therefore . . .
a. Office space for a staff of 15 is necessary.
b. One separate office for the program coordinator is
necessary.
c. Office space for Council on Aging representative is
necessary.
4. Senior Citizens Center Staff
a. Office space for a staff► of 10, including a recep-
tionist, is necessary.
b. One separate office for the center's director is
necessary.
5. Game Room
a. Must accommodate two pool tables and one snooker table.
6. Meeting Rooms
a. At least two and preferobly .three meeting rooms shall
be provided.
b. Each room should accommodate 25-30 people at tables and
50 people in assembly seating.
7. Additional Needs
a. Storage space for folding tables and chairs.
b. Reception area.
c. Foyer/lounge at entry with easy, covered access to buses.
d. Janitor' s closet.
e. Restrooms with ladies "lounge" and handicapped equipment.
f. Coat storage.
g. Public address system in Assembly and with music in all
rooms.
h. All building components should be durable and require
little maintenance.
i. Transmission of interior noise should be mitigated.
J. Entire building must be accessible to handicapped.
k. Drinking fountains (inside & outside) & vending machine alcove.
8. Outdoor Activities
a. Four shuffleboard courts.
b. Outdoor seating.
C. Outdoor eating area with kitchen access and separation
from surrounding area.
d. Parking for 70-75 cars.
e. Easy access for charter buses.
NOVEMBER 221 1978
PROJECT NO: A78-2657
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
MAIN STREET, BETWEEN Sth AND 6th STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACHI CALIPORNIA
FOR
CITY OP HUNTINGTON BEACH
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
eow.�moo.�nia
• Illll• AIRPORT WAY P.Q. Goa iNN•LON• RBACH. CALIF. U"I - ►NONt 1118/4=•-1Tso
U&l•C THIRD •TRRRT • RIV609189. CALIF. NMT - PMOMs 1I4/N46•Ti1•
ooK.� aniows��wo.
C«IRwIM Few "I"611~
November 22, 1973
Project Noe A7=-2637 ,
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P. O. Box I"
Huntington Beach, California 9X48
Attention: Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
Reference: Senior Citizen Housing Developnent
Old Civic Center Site
Main Street) between Sth and 6th Street
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Presented herewith is our Report of Preliminary Foundation Investigation conducted on
the site of the Senior Citizen Housing Development to be located at the above
referenced site.
The investigation was planned In accordance with the plans and information furnished to
us by your office.
It is understood that the proposed structures will mainly consist of 1 to 3 story wood
frame construction. Maximum column and wall loads of 30 kips and 2.3 kips per lineal
foot, respectively, have been assumed and utill{ed in our calculations.
Prudent evaluation of site conditions has been made with regard to the structural
aspects of the proposed development.
Respectfully submitted,
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
�eoee�4-10-0-
Richard L. Manning, 3r. Z. h mad
Projec t Engineer RY! E.
6621 R LM:sda
cc: S
y r _
SLUM
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the surface and subsurface soil
conditions on the site and to obtain Information on which to bare recommendations for
site development and for desiping adequate foundations for the proposed Senior
Citizens Housing Development.
The results of the field investigation and laboratory study, upon which our
recommendations are based, are contained In the Appendix to this report.
The recommendations contained In the report reflect our best estimate of soil
conditions at the time of drilling only, and based upon information obtained from the
limited number of test borings performed. 1t is not to be construed as a warranty of the
condition of the soil in other areas or at other depths. Should any unusual conditions
become apparent during grading or foundation construction, this office should be
contacted for instructions prior to continuation of the work.
'The owner or his representative should ma4e sure that the information and
recommendations contained in this report are called to the attention of the project
architect and engineers and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps
are taken to confirm that the contractors carry out such recommendations In the field.
This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project.
This office should be notified should any of the following, pertaining to final site
development occur.
1) Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas not originally
proposed to receive future structures.
2) Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for . evaluation and
preparation of this report.
3) The site is not developed within 12 months following the date of this report.
4) C:hange of ownership of property occurs.
Should any of the above occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized
plans of site development. Provided information would be reviewed and necessary
recommendations for additional work and or updating of the report provided. Any
charges for such review and necessary recommendations would be at the prevailing rate
at the time of performing review work.
/&, 79-2657 page 2
xs tnioin�te�o,inia
T
S1 LOCATION AND CONDITIONS
1. LOCATION
The site is located an the property of the old Civic Center an Main Street,
between Sth and ith Street, In Huntington beach, Callfornla. The following
information pertaining to site conditions was obtained duNng the course of
performing field work for this project.
2. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The property site is bound an the north by Main Street, and an the south by
Orange Street. The site is bound on the out and wet by Sth Street and ith
Street, respectively.
3. SURFACE CONDITIONS
The area of investigation has a generally uniform level grade. Numerous
buildings are presently situated an the site (refer to Plot Plan, Plate "A") and
visually appear to be in good condition.
An asphaltic paved street (Pecan Avenue) was noted running across the site in a
direction parallel to Orange Avenue. Several paved parking lots were also noted
on the site. in general, asphaltic pavements visually appeared to be in fair to
good condition.
The balance of the site is covered by lawn, landscaped plants, and numerous trees
(mostly large palm trees).
4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Subsurface exploration disclosed no fill soils on the site at test boring locations.
Surface natural soils are classified as silty and clayey sands, sandy slits and silty
clays, with deeper seated natural soils classified as sands.
ti
• A78-2657
� Page 3
r
BDIL/fl�l/�EAMVD.NdG
SITE LOCATION AND CONDITIONS - continued
5• GROUNDWATER AND CAVING
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 33 feet below existing grade, as
determined in test boring no. 1.
Measurements taken in test boring nos. 3, 4, and S were to the level of driller's
mud slurry only. The slurry was utilized to minimize any potential hole closure
during drilling. .The level of driller's mud slurry continued to fail during the
period of monitoring and therefore did not reflect depth to groutdwater table.
However, the level of driller's mud slurry did staillize at a depth of 36 feet
below existing grade, potentially indicating the presence of a water table.
6. UTILITIL'S
No overhead or underground utilities were encountered during the performance
of field work for this project. However, overhead power lines were rated
servicing buildings on the northern 1/2 of the site, and underground utility lines
are probable. It is understood an oil production line may run through the site.
7. GENERAL
A detailed description of soils encountered and conditions experienced during the
performance of subsurface exploration is shown on the appended boring logs.
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS
The following preliminary structural information is understood to apply for this project
(as provided via phone conversations with Steve Kohler) and was considered in our
evaluation.
1. It is understood that the site will be used for residential development consisting
of 1 to 3 story wood frame construction.
�v
A78-2657 Page 4
0.9 EN4INEEF11h1O,IP1G
. t
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS - continued
2. It is understood that slab on grade construction will be utilized.
3. It is understood that several of these structures may have a subsurface garage.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. GENERAL
Based an a review of site conditions disclosed during the perfor"Mme of field
work, and evaluation of available laboratory test Was the folbwing
recommendations are provided.
2. SITE PREPARATION
Prior to grading, the following items should be performed.
2-1 Organic Growth:
2-1.1 Trees:
Trees which lie in areas of future construction must be removed.
Such removal must Include rootballs and any attendant root
systems.
2-1.2 Surface Vegetation:
Grass turf should be stripped and disposed of off site. Stripping
should penetrate three to six inches into surface soils. Any soil
sufficiently contaminated with organic matter (such as root
systems or strippings mixed into the soils) so as to prevent proper
compaction shall be disposed of off site or set aside for future use
in landscape areas.
�o
/4&A78-2657 Page 5
MLD en+on�eer o,intc
l
C OMM11NDATIONS- continued
2. SITE PREPARATION - continued
2-2 Existing Structuress
2-2.1 Demolitions
Slabs an grade and foundation systems from demolished structures
should be completely removed before grading operations
commence.
2-2.2 Oversize Material:
No concrete from demolished structures, structure foundations, or
encasing may be used in compacted fill without the approval at the
foundation engineers. Approval would be dependent upon
feasibility of reducing concrete places to manageable sizes (six
Inch maximum), and feasibility of placing such oversized material
at a minimum of two feet below elevation of future footing
bottoms. °
2-3 Existing Asphaltic Concrete Pavements
Any existing streets and paved parking areas designated for removal shell
be stripped from the site and associated concrete curbs and walks
completely removed.
Such removed asphalt paving and concrete fragments should be disposed of
.off site unless it can be reduced to manageable sizes specified in section
2-2.2 above. Reuse would be subject to the above referenced section.
2-4 Utilities:
Any underground utilities should be cut-off a minimum of 4 feet beyond
the edge of future buildings. As an alternate, deep hollow lines may be
left in place provided they are filled with concrete. No filled line should
be permitted closer than 2 feet from the bottom of future footings.
�o
A 78-2657 Page 6
r
)LL9 eNMINKRPWH=.1NG
- r j
r RECOMMENDATIONS - continued
2. SITE PREPARATION - continued
2-4 Utilitiess - continued
The ends of cut-off hollow lines should be plugged a minimum of 3 feet
with concrete exhiblting minimum shrinkage characteristics to prevent
water migrating to or from hollow. lines. In addition,capping of lines may
be required should the plug be subjgct to any line pressures.
2-5 Abandoned Wells:
The condition of any previously abandoned wells if encountered should be
researched to ensure that proper cut-off depths, and plugging and capping
operations were performed.
2-6 OR Contaminated Soils:
Should any sumps or oil contaminated lolls be encountered, it would be
necessary to remove soils sufficiently contaminated with oil to prevent
proper compaction to full depth. Contaminated soils should be disposed of
off site.
3. GRADING
After completion of the above preparatory items, grading may commence.
3-1 Slabs on Grade:
Natural soils in areas of future slab on grade construction should be
scarified 12 inches and recompacted to previously specified percentages
and moisture contents prior to replacing any removed old fill.
The above specified scarification wind recompaction of site surface soils
would also be required prior to placement of any fill if needed to achieve
subgrade elevation.
0
,P A 78-26 S7 Page 7
m
v
soa.e eNoNten�c�.in+c
1 t
RECOMMENDATIONS -rcontinueid
3• GRADING -contiawed,;
3,2 Elaalcf ills.. .
fAjs#ingLsi#e q oq.ntered.in just borings were,genecall.y.dean and are
%ensidQrO�,tNi ,le rfgr Wjm. However, should any deleterious material
be encountered, it would be necessary to dean such material from
upay 4tAd tplls,prior,tQ,teMse.
Excavated material approved for reuse should be deposited in 6 to = inch
jWp*e lifts land 4FgcpgW&cted to 90 percent of maximum density at near
optimum moisture contents.
3-j3 t1rnpO6VA,,�o113,(Ef,qe.q*d)s
Any,irpprted;spjl�r 4 to.ca pe grading operatiga shgl� .poosistiK
of granular low expansive material which exhibits an expansion index of
.,'9gtA1Pjktre� .tb4nro v4tpn.lps.#ed,in,gKcprdame with,l1.6,.C,• 296%2,Vipansitm
;�1nORF-T"t(NowAur".
3•,4 •DTI wmO 1rPReEip*s
Grading, compaction, and utility line backfill operations should be
peZrformAcitn,;#he,lpsence.of ,a ,field representative of ,this,ptfiim. ,An
a0rt:4uat-pt .iWlpk>~r ►Pt fiald ./,kn4ity ,tests should ,ire Ptak n .to ;exts.ure
Y j gPmP.Wtce wUhithk3.jrgport,, nOtigcal,ordinames.
tlf;it,js,detowrnimd AA4ing.;gcddiri�,thAt sails require,ce6Wp4isg tp„groAter
•..ds,'Pihs�,stor:,,sdfe;�sWRPQ�t,ofke,prgposed structyr.g, thipjpd4itional work
should be performed as directed it the field.
w
.P
dG7Nt!!Et341�iMOtM40!{,i® i.�OlsJ.
RECOMMENDATIONS - continued
3. GRADING - continued
3-4 Tests and Inspectionat - Continued
Imported fill soil should be inspected by a representative of this office
prior to being hauled to the site.
Maximum density for control of grading shall be determined in accordance
with ASTM D1557-70 teat procedures.
4. SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE
The upper 3 to 6 inches of surface sails may not be suitable for use as structural
till due to organic contamination.
Nominal volumetric shrinkage may be expected as a result of soil compaction.
Site subsidence caused by clearing and compaction operations will also occur. An
average value of 0.1 feet is recommended for earth yardage calculations.
An estimated S cubic yard wastage should be considered fair each tree rootball
system removed.
Losses due to removal of structure foundations, slabs, pavement, and abandoned
utility lines will also occur, however such losses are dependent on the extent of
material removed and therefore cannot be accurately estimated at this time.
Total estimated site shrinkage should be calcualted by combining all the above
values. The estimates given herein should be verified during grading.
wo .
A78-2637 Page 9
xxs■r�o�wNo,irc
t
RECOMMENDATIONS - continued
s. DESIGN VALUES
3-1 Bearing Capacitieso
Respective, sate, dead plus live load allowable bearing pressures of 19M
and 2100 pounds per square foot may be used in design of continuous and
spread footings when placed an firm bearing natural sous, and when
embedded is inches below lowest adjacent finish sulWade. A one third
Increase In the above bearing pressures may be used when Considering
short term loading from wind or seismic sources. No footing should be
built less than 12 inches wide.
Inspections of the footing trench excavations should be performed by a
representative of this office to confirm embedment into, and placement
on competent bearing natural soils, and to ensure any loose or caved soils
are cleaned from footing bottoms prior to placement of reinforcing or
concrete.
3-2 Settlements:
Total settlements for footings placed on approved bearing soils are not
expected to exceed 1 inch. Differential settlements may be determined
by comparing estimates for total settlements as presented in the following
table for varying finished floor subgrade elevations and loading conditions.
TABLE OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS
Finish Floor Footing Load Settlement -
Subgrade Tye!— Condition Inches
Existing Grade Continuous 2.S 0.3
Existing Grade Spread so 1.0
'Partial Basement Continuous .2.5 if 0.4
'Partial Basement Spread 80k 0.3
�o *Finish'floor subgrade elevation taken at 3 feet below existing grade.
A
��1° . A78-2657 Page 10
r �
RECOMMENDATIONS - continued
5. DESIGN VALUES
5-2 Settlements: - continued
Should the structural loading conditions vary by more than 10 percent
from those assumed for this project, this office should be notified for
further evaluation and recommendations as necessary.
5-3 Lateral Resistance:
Lateral resistance may be computed by use of a passive pressure of 250
pounds per square foot per foot of embedment into compacted fill polls,
and a friction coefficient of 0.31 between concrete and the supporting
soil.
6. FLOOR SLABS
Floor slabs may be safely supported on soils reworked as described in the Grading
section of this report. Any slab to receive a moisture sensitive floor covering
should be placed on an impermeable membrane topped with two inches of clean,
coarse sand, or on 4 inches of open-graded gravel.
7. EXPANSIVE SOIL PRESSURES
Site surface soils exhibit very, low expansive soil characteristics. However the
degree of expansion should be confirmed after completion of rough grading
operations.
S. PLANTERS
Any planter areas placed adjacent to perimeter footings should be provided with
false bottoms, or other devices, to divert water away from foundation and slab
subgrade soils. Excessive lateral water movement to or from such soils might
unnecessarily increase differential settlements.
�o This concludes the recommendations. The appendix follows.
• A78-2657
Page 11
v
�e �Na�a�o,roc
t
APPENDIX
The following Appendix contains the substantiating data and laboratory test results to
complement the engineering evaluations and recommendations contained In the report.
Plate "A" Plot Plan
Plate 1111-1" thru "B-Y' Boring Logs
Plate 11C-1" thru 14C-6" Load-Settlement Curves
Plate "D-1" thru "D-6" Direct Shear Tests
SITE EXPLORATION
On October 31, and November 1 and 2, 1979 field explorations were made by drilling S
test borings at the approximate locations indicated an the attached Plot Plan, Plate
"A". A truck mounted rotary mud type drilling rig equipped with a pump capable of
circulating a bentonitic "drillers mud" slurry and 6 inch diameter soil type drill bit was
used to advance 3 of the S bore holes to depths of 25 to 40 feet from existing grade. A
truck mounted drilling rig equipped with a 6 inch diameter continuous flight auger bit
was used to advance 2 of the 3 bore holes to a depth of 30 and 40 feet from the existing
grade.
Description of the soils encountered, depth of undisturbed cores, field density and field
moisture content are given on the Log of borings for the test holes.
Undisturbed samples of soils were extracted in a barrel sampler with tapered cutting
shoe. The undisturbed soil retained in 2.5 inch diameter by one inch rings within the
sampler was tested in the laboratory to determine in-place density, moisture content,
shear resistance and settlement characteristics.
Continuous observations of the materials encountered in the borings were recorded in
the field. The soils were classified in the field by visual and textural examination and
these classifications were supplemented by obtaining bulk soil samples for future
examination in the laboratory. All samples were secured in moisture-resistant bags as
soon as taken to minimize the loss of field moisture while being transported to the
laboratory and awaiting testing.
After the samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that
would provide sufficient data for our analysis of the soils was established.
�°
• A78-2657 1
�e
i.s 11nm1h"PW40,w4r-
r f
APPENDIX - continued
LABORATORY TESTS
Direct shear and consolidation tests were performed an selected undisturbed core
samples to determine the shear strength and settlement characteristics of various soil
samples.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS
The following maximum density tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D1337-
70 Method A of test using 3 equal layers, 23 blows each layer, 10 pound hammer, is
inch drop in a 1/30 cubic foot mold.
Test Hole Depth, Maximum Optimum Material
Number Feet Density, pcf Moisture, 916 Classification
1 0 - 4 123.0 9.0 SM
2 0 - 4 131.3 9.0 SM - ML
EXPANSION DETERMINATION
Expansion tests were performed on selected soil samples to determine the swell
characteristics of typical site materials and the following results were obtained for 144
pounds per square foot surcharge load, The expansion test was conducted in accordance
with Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. Expansion Index Test.
Maximum Opt Molded Molded
Density Moist. Dry Moisture % Expansion Expansion
Location _�cf % Density Content Saturation index Classification
T- H. 1 129.0 9.0 122.1 9.3 63.2 0 Very Low
0- 4
T. H. 2' 131 . 5 9.0 120.6 9.1 34.7 0 Very Low
Ca
0 - 4
�o
A 78-26 S 7 I I
v
SOK.• ENo1NWliMNO.LNG
� 1
A 6 - 2OP7 T �
04
i
e
� � Y
i. �,Go►N AYE.
� x
u z .
btch�oala►. Ns.u.,
4 1
{
f
Ll NIG.
4 �
LOG OF
*All 10 1*dt t Sage note below PWACT A79-2657
1 11ptt 110. 1
nv�Nr. See note below BM 8"AAD 11-2-78
i,i I1111 On tut None
...,.. i «». even..
•M l f l. '
TEST HOLE NO. 1
0.0-1 .0 SANDY SILT - Brown to dark brown. border HL
silty sand (SM) - damp
1.0-3.0 SILTY SAND - Brown, borders sandy lilt gN 2.0 15 * 10.5
(ML) , with a trace of clay, with t;ace
roots (to 1/4" diameters) - moist
3.0-5.0 CLAYEY SAND - Brown, with a trace of SC 3.0 30 115.5 112.4
rootlets - calcareous - moist
5.0-9.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown, light brown to light CL 5.0 24 117.4 14.3
gray brown below 7 .0' , with a trace of 8.0 27 111.8 14.3
sand - moist, moist to wet below 7,0'
9.0-9.5 SANDY CLAY - Light brown - moist CL
9.5-11.5 FINE SAND - Light brown, with a trace SP-SM
of silt - damp
11 .5-40.0 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Gray and rust - SP 13.0 49 95. 1 3.1
damp, moist to wet below 36' 18.0 34
23.0 35/6" * 3.6
28.0 33 *
KEY:
1) Blow Count
2) Dry Density, pcf
3) Moisture Content, X
i
NOTE: Blow counts as determined by drop ng a
140 lb. hammer through a height of 30 in es
on a 2. 5 inch I.D. sampling device. Rec ded
blows are for 12 inches of penetration, cept
as noted.
*Indicates unsuccessful attempts made in etrie ing
undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample to n whe e
possible for visual classification and sture
determination only.
i
f,
I
� 'U1TL •• 1
J
cJ'
•
v
Lao OF SWOM
wn I I It I Au11 1MJM A78-2657
(.AriN+. TM UM OW 1 - cont'd
urr ►►I +►r ►ur Mg OMIAD
or$am
.�.•M (�) (!� (»•N . i p1� it•Y~pw 4Yr1I lt18 swan" m
( TEST HOLE NO. 1 = continued
IWATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTES:
After completion of drilling to a depth
401 , test boring closed to 35' below exi ing
grade -- bottom of hole vet in moiature ntent .
After 15 minutes had transpired, bottom hole
at 35' and saturated in moisture content Indic tinA
approximate level of groundwater table.
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
i
1
I
rt1119 • 1 - lont'd
•
N �
v -
A &- WP7
I
i
i
i
0
I
i
i
�GON AYE.
� x
I �
b W*7aleL NsLL
I NIA,
a �
«,►.� Aver �� �
LN OF swim
iftAII N- IAI111 See note below PMXCV A78-2657
r AVINc See note below IM HOER No• 3
UIN114 Of luL None MR MUD 11-1-78
i
WO 1
w I NK C►YM/K��1w 1Y *Team �/ �1 ��r � � � ��I
I
TEST HOLE NO. 3
0.0-1.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT ON 6"
16"
AGGREGATE BASE
1.0-5.0 SILTY SAND - Brown to dark brown, borders SM 2.0 26 113.2 9:3
sandy silt . 01L) . trace of organics at 3.0 13 110. 1 9.3
2.0' - moist
5.0711.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown, with sand, gradations CL 5.0 36 116..11 13.0
contact with above silty sand horison, 8.0 41 118.8 15.6
sand percentages decrease with depth -
moist
11 .0-13.0 FIRE SAND - Brown with light brown, with SP b
lens of clay (CL) at 12' - moist CL
13.0-18.0 FINE TO MEDIL71 SAND - Light brown, with SP-SN 13.0 53 107.8 12.4
a trace of silt - moist
18.0-39.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Light brown. light `) SP 18.0 52/7.5 101 .9 21 .7
gray brown below 28' - wet to saturated I 23.0 43
28.0 50/5" * 19.1
39.0 52/6" * 23.4
KEY: i
� 1) Blow Count
2) Dry Density, pcf
13) Moisture Content, %
I
I I
INOTE: Blow counts as determined by dropp ng a
250 lb. hammer through a height of' 18 inc es
on a 2.5 inch I.U. sampling device. Reco ded
blows are for 12 inches of penetration, cept
as noted.
l *Indicates unsuccessful attempts made in etrieving
undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample tak n for
visual classtficaiton and moisture deters nation
, only, where possible.
I
I
I
' PLATE t 3
P
�0
v
_ 1
LM OF
FIUIPIII
AIIN ,AHIt MOJM A76-2657
AVIN,, B� Ir1i M0.3 - cont'd
Of i Iu �M M�LBO
(3)
N . , I ..w c..M�ws..�w ,wwa. a.rr► wwM
TEST HOLE NO. 3 - continued
WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTE:
After completion of drilling operations, he
bore hole was partially bailed of driller is
mud and the following tabulated measur is
were recorded.
Bottom 'lof Depth to
Date Time Holei Driller's rks
11-1-78 2:30 pm 34.0' Bai hole f dril er's
11-2-78 8:15 am 38.0' 34.0' Dep to dri ler's i ud spP4 Kra st le.
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
ti►rL • 3 - on t'd
0
y�
V -
t .
Las Or BMW
WAIT k IAe1E See note below PGOAM A76-2657
r AVIN4 None experienced TM IOU me. 4
Of N I►+ Of Fill None MAR MILLLD 11-1-7 8
I
N . . OWL err. ns• ww,w e�rrr► wwrr 1) _� 3
TEST HOLE NO. 4
0.0-2.0 SILTY SAND - Brown to light brown, border gM
sandy silt, with 'a trace of clay - damp
2.0-3.0 SILTY SAND - Light brown, with clay, SM 2.0 70/10" 122.0 8.1
with trace organic material - moist
3.0-5..0 CLAYEY SAND - Brown with gray brown and SC 3.0 72/10' 123.0 1 9.3
rust - damp ,
5.0-8.5 SILTY C1AY - Light brown to brown, with CL 5.0 40 118.2 15.6
a trace of sand - moist
8.5-10.0 FINE SAND - Light brown with light brown SP
- moist
10.0-25.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Light brown, light SP 10.0 47 108.8 11 .1
gray brown below 20' - wet, saturated 15.0 48/61' 107.2 19. 1
with depth 20.0 50/619 * 4.7
25.0 50/6" 101 .8 17.0
KEY:
1) Blow Count
2) Dry Density, pcf
13} Moisture Content, %
iNOTE: Blow counts as determined by dropp ng a
250 lb. hammer through a height cf 18 Inc es on
a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Record blow
are for 12 inches of penetration, except s not
*Indicates unsuccessful attempt made to r triev
' undisturbed core sample. Bulk sample tak n whe e
possible for visual classification 'and mo sture
determination only.
i
i
I
ITS • 4
Ll
�a
v�
v '
�.4 t�+mrNllsMMO.rNG
wA11 M IAY11 PRUM A78-2657
1 AVINI. IM "t MO. 4 - cont'd
of PT 4 of /ILL "Ta 11-1-78
1 400,010
11 11 / 1
,poplar I 4"aam"squam 611M/Ir1 e1mM► memo
M
[TEST HOLE NO. 4 - continued
WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTES:
After completion of drilling operations tie bor
hole was partially balled of drillers mud and
the following tabulated sessuremegts were recordod.
Bottom of pepth of
Date Time hole Drillers lud Reaar 1
11-1-78 11:15 an '25.0' 19.0' Billed ho a of d illerstud
11-2-78 8:00 am 25.0' 22.5'
c
I
,
i
i
P"M 8* 4 - cont'd
OIr
V•
f
LN Or NOWN
WAIIN TAME See note below T A78-2657
CAVIN(i See note below TM IBIS W 5
UIPIN OF FILL None SATE 8WAY 10-31-78, 11-1 8
I N� (1) (!) (3)
TEST HOLE NO. 5
0.0-4.5 SILTY SAND - Brown, with a trace of clay SM 2.0 24 122.4 13.0
- moist 3.0 21 124.0 13.0
4.5-8.0 SILTY CLAY - Brown to light brown, with CL 5.0 41 119.6 15.6
a trace sand - moist
8.0-12.0 FINE SAND - Brown to light brown, with P-SN 8.0 40 117.8 14.3
silt - wet
12.0-13.0 SILTY CLAY - Light brown - stiff - moist CL
13.0-22.5 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - Rust and gray - SP 13.0 37/6" 102.2 19. 1
wet to saturated 18.0 53/6" 105.9 21 .2
22.5-23.0 SANDY CLAY - Gray brown, borders clayey CL
sand - moist
23.0-23.5 FINE SAND - Gray with rust, with a trace SP-SC 23.0 30/6" 114.8 14.3
of clay - moist
23. 5-28.0 FINE SAND - Gray with rust, with lenses ( SP 23.5 30/3"
or layers of fine to coarse sand below
26 feet - moist
28.0-39. 5 FINE TO HEDIU11 SAND - Light gray brown, SP 28.0 45/6" 106. 3 19. 1
igray to blue gray below 39' - saturated 33.0 160/8" 100.2 22.0
39.0 40/6" 110.2 19.1
KEY:
1) Blow Count II
2) Dry Density, pcf
3) Moisture Content, %
i
NOTE: Blow counts as determined by dropp ng a
250 lb. hammer through a height of 18 inc es
on a 2.5 inch I.D. sampling device. Reco ded
blows are for 12 inches of penetration, cept
ias noted.
I
i
PLAR a 5
Ir
d'
boy
v
LMN •
WAII M IAdI( 1�OJLCT A78-2657
c.AVIN(. VW 1MLL NO. 5 - cont'd
M 11111 M ML Avg OMUSD
i
.. •i Nu Ct..MNK��Ni/ YIwIN *wrM► OP gem
�
(l) (!) l3)
TEST HOLE NO. 5 - continued
WATER TABLE AND CAVING NOTES:
After completion of drilling operations t bore
hole was partially bailed of drillers mud nd
the following tabulated measurements were ecordbd.
Bottom of Depth of
Date Time Hole Drillers Remarks
11-1-78 8:15. am 28.0' Ba led hol of dr lers
11-1-78 9: 15 am 36.0' 28.5'
11-1-78 1: 15 pm 36.0' 30.0'
11-2-78 8:00 am 36.0' 32.0'
11-2-78 1:00 pm 36.0' 32.5'
�I
li
1
PLO= • 5 con t'd
v
yy
v
• CITY OF HUf1TInGTon B.EA ( H
� Ila DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
11. 0. B. OX 190, HUNTINGTON III ACII, (a11.If 0IINIA 9261111 UiM !11W02/1
December 15, 1978
Subject: Senior Citizen Housing Proposals: Evaluation Criteria
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the evaluation criteria that we will
use to review all proposals submitted in response to our Request for
Proposal for senior housing and recreation facilities on the Old Civic
Center site. These criteria are transmitted now to assist you in
finalizing your proposal.
In addition, I would like to ask that all narrative information sub-
mitted with your proposal (including economic statements, design
methodology, management plan, etc. ) be submitted in duplicate. Likewise,
if you intend to submit blueprint plans with your proposal , please
submit in duplicate. Of course, any large-scale display drawings you
may wish to submit will not require additional copies.
Let me remind you that all proposals must be received at our office
(2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach) by 12 :00 noon December 22 , 1978.
We look forward to your submission and if you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 536-5541.
Very truly yours,
Stephe Ko er
Senior Comm ity Development Specialist 11,3
SVK:df
Enclosure
HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPER EVALUATION CRITERIA
A. DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS AND CAPABILITIES
1 . Previous Experience:
a. Housing
- generally
- multi-family
- subsidized
- elderly
b. Rehab.
c. Commercial
d. Performance of Developed Projects
e. Property Management Experiences
- Management method (contract or in-house capabilities) -
proposed method on subject site.
- Organizational system and its characteristics
- Number of residential units presently under
management
- Sinking fund or reserve for replacement
- Proposed tenant selection process
f. Reputation in Industry
g. Qualitications of Desiqn Team
2. Financial Strength
a. Net Worth
b. Banking Connections
c. Credit References - D E B Rating
d. Sources of Financing
- interim
- take-out
1 .
B. DESIGN FACTORS
1 . Site Plan
a. Density, Number of Units
b. Open Space
c. Linkages, Units, Senior Center, Library
d. Orientation to Surrounding Environment
e. Retention of Specimen Trees
f. Landscaping
2. Amenity Package
a. Indoor Facilities
b. Outdoor Facilities
C. Parking
3. Unit Design
a. Unit Mix - 1 Bedroom, 2 Bedroom, Studio
b. Unit Size, Square Footage
c. Light, Ventilation
d. Unit Features
Amenities
Special Elderly Features, i .e. , grab bars, wider doorways,
shower seats, safety-related features, security features
e. Floor Plan
4. Building Configuration
a. Number of Stories
b. Design Diversity
c. Cost Effectiveness (net useable space both interior and exterior)
5. Outer Design Factors
a. Compatibility with Neighborhood
b. Energy Efficiency
-3-
C. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
1 . Development Costs
a. Site-Preparation
b. Direct Construction
c. Amenity and Landscaping
d. Indirect Costs
interim financing, including loan points
G b A
architecture and engineering fees
legal and accounting
marketing
insurance, closing costs, and miscellaneous fees
�. OPERATING FEASIBILITY
a. Test Rental Rate Assumptions, Marketability of Non-
Subsidized Units
b. Number of Section 8 Units
Do they meet HUD standards?
c. Gross Revenue •
d. Vacancy Allowance
e. Operating Costs
real estate taxes (in this case, whereby the City maintains
land ownership, possessory interest taxes will apply)
insurance
- utilities - gas, water, electricity
- elevator maintenance and reserve
- landscape maintenance and reserve
- rubbish collection
- replacement reserves - roof, appliances, paint, carpets, etc.
- ongoing building maintenance
- Janitorial
- resident manager.
- legal and accounting
- management fees
-4-
f. Cash Flow and Rate of Return.
- capitalized value of operating income stream
- probable amount and terms of interim and take-out financing
- developer equity requirements
- after debt-service cash flow
- cash flow return on investment (ROT)
- -justification of City subsidy
E . CITY OBJECTIVES
a. Number and Percent of Subsidized Units
b. Fiscal Impact
Revenues (possessory interest taxes, fees and licenses, per
cap subventions, sales tax generation, etc. )
Costs (direct subsidy, municipal services)
c. Completeness of Proposals - Committment to All Elements of
Program or Just Parts
• CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271
APPROXIMATE DEVELOPMENT COSTS/FEES
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
1. Environmental Impact Report
Approximate consultant fees $ 10, 000. 00
Approximate City administrative fees 490. 00
2. Use Permit Fee 75. 00
3. Drainage Fee ($600/ac. ) 21,000. 00
4 . Water Fee 30. 00/unit
5. Sewer Fee 60. 00/unit
6. County Sanitation District Fee 250. 00/unit
7. Cultural Enrichment Fee
(2/3 of fee- to be rebated upon
issuance of building permit) . 15/sq. ft.
8. Street Improvement Fee
(Calculated for unimproved frontage) 50. 00/linear ft.
9. Parks and Recreation Fees
Bachelor and efficiency 389. 00/unit
1 bedroom 492. 00/unit
2 bedroom 759. 00/unit
3 bedroom 1,056. 00/unit
10. Building Permit and Plan Check Fee
(based on 6 million dollar project) 22, 000. 00
Jr , •( � 1.
i• CITY Or Moll WELw+CM
tNTf-IrW,,�MTMRffI1CATION
MIMTMrGTON M/KN -
To STEVE KOHLER LM M WALTER M, JMSOM
HOUSING i COMM MITY DuV>99002M :Ms' LIBRARY DIRECTOR
Subject MAIN STREET LIBRARY 0M April 7, 1978
As requested, I have divided tbw: ' regents foc Vain Street
Library into two partat "A", B�ipiAn"n .Of the. Nx4*tUw Building
and "B" Requirements for a My . ung.
A. Renovation of RXisting SOL %P
1 . Paint interior and exterior-
Z . improve lighting throughout .
3 . New overstuff furniture
4 . Light control for the gallery wing
Carpeting throughout
6 . Repair of tiling in uncarpeted areas
7 . Improve ventilation in restrooms
8 . Removal of asbestos ceiling
a . Renovation of furnace and heating system
I0 . Altering room behind checkout desk to comfortable "living
room" atmosphere
1) Dumbwaiter
1.2 . Renovation of staff lounge and hall area leading to it
13 . Public patio in back area .
1.4 . Display space for Historical Society
The ho Llding is structurally sound and architecturally pleasing. it
is Oic general feeling that any attempts to replace it would be met
with great. resistance.
B. New Building Needs
1 . Space comparable to existing xowu (to hpuse 50,000 volumes)
2 . Adequate lighting from A variety of sources
3 . Study seating for 25 to 30
4 . Inviting outside entrance
5 . Wall display space
6 . Parking adjacent to entranceway
7 . Adequate staff working area
8 . Checkout area
9. Comfortable "living room" area
10. Small office space
11 . Staff lounge ' .
12. Adequate space for Historical Society
13. Work display area for cultural activities
cc: Library Board
Allied Arts
Historical Society
Team
REVISED
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator DATE: 1/30/79
FROM: Stephen V. Kohler , Senior Community.Development Specialist
SUBJECT: Proposals for Senior Housing / Old Civic Center :Site
i
As you may know, the City of Huntington Beach has received 13 proposals from
developers in response to our RFP for -Senior Housing and Recreational Facili-
ties on the Old Civic Center site. A list of these California developers is
attached to this memorandum. We feel that the proposals were well thought
out, complete and for the most part , realistic. We are fortunate to have
received proposals from a .number of the leading California housing builders.
Our staff, assisted by Urban Projects, Inc. (our development advisors) , has
carefully reviewed each of the individual proposals and has evaluated each
on the basis of a set of preestablished factors entitled "Huntington "Beach
Developer Evaluation Criteria". We have evaluated each of these proposals
bused upon: developer experience, design factors, financial reasonability
and City benefits. A summary of our evaluation process of "each of the 13
proposals is made a part of this memorandum.
It is our recommendation that the City Council (or a Housing Committee,
appointed by. the Council) hear a verbal presentation from a select number
of the developers who have made proposals. These presentations should, un-
less deemed otherwise, be limited to about four firms. Based on our evalu-
atio' we. recommend that the following four firms- be interviewed:
Goldrich, Kest .A Associates
i The William Lyon Company
Ring Brothers
The Toman Company
A number of the other firms could very well develop an acceptable senior
citizens housing project on the Old Civic Center site. In our evaluation
.process we also felt that the proposals from Watt Industries and Mayer
Government Housing had specific merit in certain areas.
We recommend that a single developer be selected as a result of the inter-
view process and that the City negotiate with that firm on an exclusive
basis.
List of Developers
1 . The Hall Partners/Warmington Development Company
2. Calmark Properties, Inc. .
3• The Klein Group, et al .
�. Goldrich, Kest Associates
5. The William Lyon Company
6. Mayer Government Housing, Inc.
7.. Nat iona1 . Housing Consultants , Inc: #1
8. National Housing Consultants , Inc. #2
9. The R. H. Klein Company
10. Ring Brothers Corporation
11 . Shape] ] Government Housing, Inc.
1.2. The Toman Company
13. Watt Industries, Inc.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 1
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE . I .D. Hall
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The Hall Partners / Warmington Development Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 150 75 $306=450
Studio 0 —
One Bedroom 105 $306-.340
Two Bedroom 45 $364-450
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Limited, experience in multi-family subsidized housing
(Hall commercial ; Warmington - single-family resi-
dential) . Below average financial resources.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Relatively good - set-backs and linkages good; parking all
surface .and exposed; 120 spaces meet project requirements.
Housing For Elderly Average - unit size .and layout acceptable - narrow in-
terior courtyards , amenity package' limited.
Sen.ior' Citizens Center Average - structure not well defined; well. integrated
into existing library.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average - Limited cost breakdown provided; however , a cost
of $4.4 million or $29,600 appears to be reasonable for
the proposed project.
Operational Revenue Fair - projected rental rates 20% to 25% over current
and Expense H.B. market ; operating costs and reserve for replacement
low by industry standards and questionable
Proposed Financing Acceptable conventional (10-3/4%, 30-year)
CITY. OBJECTIVES Average provides adequate number of Section "8"
housing.
SUMMARY Financially questionable proposal by inexperienced
developers in the area of subsidized, multi-tenant
housing.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 2
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Calmark
HUNT I NGTON BEAC H i CALIFORNIA .1 /25/7 9
NAME OF DEVELOPER Calmark Properties, Inc.`
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type, 2-story, non elevator/Mediterranean Styl.e
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 148 148 $235-250
Studio "_ 0
One Bedroom 124 $235
Two Bedroom 24 $250
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Average to good - developed and managed over 12,000 multi-
family units'. in So. Cal . (3 senior citizen projects).;
net worth of $4.8 million fairly low.
DESfGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Fair - high b4i.lding coverage on housing land area; mass
of.open parking facing .Sixth St. ; acceptable linkage.
Housing For Elderly Fair - units 15% to 20% too small ; spartan plan as to..
exterior facial and amenity package; security poor;
no cons i de rani on for handicapped needs.
-Senior Citizens Center Fair - elongated building with limited. explanation of
Interior layout plan.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average- $2.7 million or $18,000 per unit lowest of
proposals but is- for a truly low cost project.
Operational Revenue Average- rents on the low end of the scale with a
and Expense correspondingly limited expense allowance.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- as to conventional financing (101% 30-
year.
.. CITY OBJECTIVES Average to Fair - provides "affordable" housing for.
elderiy_but .in a very spartanic environment.
SUMMARY Experienced but undercapitalized developer proposing
to build a '!typical" garden apartment complex.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number , 3
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE" I .D. Klei.n/Turner
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF. DEVELOPER The Klein Group,' et. a).
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
.Building Type 3-story, e_levatored/Coloni-al design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo. )
All 156 0 $400-480
Studio 0
One Bedroom 120 $400
Two Bedroom 36 $480.
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS" Klein has experience in subsidized housing development;
however, a newly formed firm in a new joint venture
with limited capital resources.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average/good - good linkage landscaping and building
sighting plan.
Housing For Elderly Good -spacious rooms, well laid out with
and extensive amenity package. Massive building with
heavy site coverage, abundance of covered parking.
Senior• Citizens Center Average--well located on site; limited description of
interior layout.
FINANCIAL FEASIBI-LITY
Project Cost Fair - $6.3 million or $40,000 per unit is 20% to 30%
more than that which is reasonable for the envisioned
senior citizens project.
Operational Revenue Poor_= high construction costs and heavy amenity package
and Expense has forced a rental program which is not in conformance
to Section 118" standards and 20% above the existing H.B.
conventional housing market.
Proposed Financing Fair = a CHFA loan the size requested is unlikely;
municipal bonds are out.
CITY OBJECTIVES Fair.- pricing.structure is out of reach of proposed
users.
SUMMARY Developer has presented a proposal which is question
able for Senior Citizen Housing. It is basically over-
designed for the market intended.
SENIOR C IT I ZEN. HOUS I NG Number 4
OLD. CIVIC- CENTER SITE I . Goldrich/Kest
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Goldrich, Kest. S Associates
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
A) 1 135 N/A �5290-364
Studio
One Bedroom 125 $.2.90
Two Bedroom 10 $364
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Ve ry good- firm specializes in multifamily housing
(emphasis on subsidized programs) . Developed and
managed over .12,000 units with net worth of $35 million.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average :- acceptable linkage and building positioning.
Setbacks frpm streets at a minimum.
Housing For Elderly Average/good - interior layout and size acceptable; 51
underground parking spaces , security good; lighting
and ventilation adequate; ltd. retail space.
Senior .Citizens Center Good - 13,000' square feet; two-story elevatored; ade-
quate parking. .
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good:-total of $4.8 million or $32,000 per unit which
is financeable and an adequate allocation.
Operational Revenue Average - rental rates achieveable in market; however ,
and Expense expense allopation (about 28% of gross income) is low
(not _i tem i ze0) .
Proposed Financing Acceptable - CHFA 71%, 30-years.
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - meets the housing requirements of the Senior.
Citizens with an acceptable plan.
., SUMMARY -Highly experienced developer in government-related
housing programs with a workable but stock plan.
Y .
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 5
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Lyons
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The William Lyon Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-stony, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
Al 1555= 5235-332
Studio 0 235
One Bedroom 137 $2 5
Two Bedroom 8 $332
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Good -major regional home builder with limited ex-
perience in governmental housing programs; supported
by very good consultant team.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Very good - strong orientation and linkage with an inno-
vative use of the land.
Housing For Elderly Excellent - good mix of units with well designed dwellings ,
amenity package, good security and parking (underground) .
Includes 4,000 square feet of retail space.
Sen.ior• Citizens Center Good- 2-story layout with good amenity package; parking
25 spaces below City requirement.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good - total of $4.8 million or $31 ,000 per unit. May be
as much as 15% low, based on extensive amenity package.
Operational Revenue Good = rents are certainly achievable in existing market;
and- Expense allowance for expenses at 28% of gross income should be -
increased by about 15%.
Proposed Financing Acceptable.- CHFA 7A, 40-year
CITY OBJECTIVES Very good - this is a creative proposal ; appears to meet
the housing criteria as well as providea strong, -physica.l
complex
SUMMARY A workable plan by a developer strong in finances and
in experience. .
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 6
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Mayer
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Mayer Government Housing Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Spanish design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per. Mo.)
All 184 11t $280-336
Studio
-
One Bedroom 166 $280
Two Bedroom 18 $336
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good- largest housing developer in So. Cal . (spe-
cializes in multi-family) ; strong financial capacity
(no statement provided) . Ltd. govt . .programs experience.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Fair/average - fair site. coverage and linkage with
little landscaping proposed.
Housing For Elderly Fair- small units which are not well laid out; limited
amenity package. Elevators poorly spaced
Senior Citizens Center Fair- lAttle outside lighting.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average- $3.9 million or $19,000 per unit; appears to
be 15 to 204 low; developer claims. that he is not tak-
ing any profit on construction.
Operational Revenue Average - rental range most acceptable; expenses some-_
and Expense what low.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- finance construction from commercial loan
with conventional take-out at later time
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - meets housing demands but project lacks de-
sign interest or linkage.
SUMMARY Excellent developer (who has successfully built projects
with a low profitmargin) with a minimum plan for the
subject sitg.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 7
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. National #1
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /�5/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER National Housing Consultants, Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 9-story, e levatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. 118" (Per Mo.)
All 208 N/A �312-370
Studio — 7-
One Bedroom 196 5312
Two Bedroom 12 $370
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Fair - limited development of. housing; do have a 200-
unit high-rise Senior Citizens project in Santa Ana.
Limited financial strength.
DESIGN FACTORS
Average - high-rise residential building, abutting ad-
Overall Plan joining single-family neighborhood on Sixth Street ,
linkage circulation and landscaping acceptable.
Housing For Elderly Fair - site density is high, unit size and design pass-
able; good amenity package.
Senior Citizens Center Fair - layout good but has less than 50% of the off-
street parking requested by the City.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Fair/Poor - $4.6 million or $31 ,000 per unit; question-
ably low for a high-rise building.
Operational Revenue Average/Fair - revenues appear to be achievable; how-
and Expense ever, a high (9-91%) management fee indicated and a
low reserve for replacement.
Proposed Financing Conventional financing of 91, 30-years generally not
available in present market.
CITY OBJECTIVES Fair - this proposal does not appear to meet apparent
City objectives for the project.
SUMMARY Somewhat inexperienced developer with a proposed
complex high-rise-building.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 8 ,
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D.Nationaly#2
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER National Housing Consultants, Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type Combination of 6-story and 3-story buildings
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 209 N/A $312 - 370
Studio
One Bedroom 201 $312
Two Bedroom 8 $370
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Same as Proposal No. 7
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Same as Proposal No. 7
f
Housing For Elderly
Senior• Citizens Center
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Same as Proposal No 7
Operational Revenue
and Expense
Proposed Financing
CITY OBJECTIVES
SUMMARY Same as Proposal No. 7
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 9.
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. K.lein Co.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The R. H. Klein Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
` Building Type 5-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range i!
±' Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 159 0
Studio
One Bedroom 159 $4o9
Two Bedroom 0
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Average/Fair- developer has cons-ulted and undertaken sub-
sidized housing programs; managed 4,500 units; financial
capacity unknown.
DESIGN FACTORS
Average/Fair- buidling mass on west side of site, ' l.arge .
Overall Plan open parking area on Sixth St. , linkage acceptable ; cir-
culation average.
Housing For Elderly Fair - all units ode bedroon, no mix, poor unit design
and interior layout.
Senior Citizens Center Average/Fair - renovation of fire station, interior
space limitations , inadequate parking.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Fair - total of $6.1 million or $38,000 per unit.
Operational Revenue Poor - rental rates substantially above criteria for
and Expense Section 4", as well as the existing H.B. market. (,
Proposed Financing
4 . CITY OBJECTIVES Fair - does not meet housing requirements.
�t
SUMMARY Rental rates , unit mix and design generally not in
conformance with project objectives and/or market
conditions.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 10
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I :D. Ring .-
HUNTINGTON BEACH,. CALI.FO.RNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Ring Brothers Corporation
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, .elevatored/ New England design
1 Rental Range f
• r
Dwelling Units Number Sec.. "8" (Per..,Mo.,).
All . 179 N/A* $283-343
Studio 0
One Bedroom 91 $283
Two Bedroom 86 S343
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - multi-family housing specialist , 6,000 apts.
and 1 ,000 condos built and managed$ good financial . state-
ment; wholly owned subsidy of Monogram Ind. , limited exp.
DESIGN FACTORS in subsidized housing.
Overall Plan Very good - excellent site plan linkage and compatibility
to surrounding area.
Housing For Elderly Good - creative building design with good interior and
exterior amenity package; parking open and away from
units; unit size acceptable; 3,200 sq.ft. of retail ;.
Senior' Citizens Center Very good - attractive, well laid out , with good tie
with the library. .
r� FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average - total of $5.5 million or $30,000 per unit; more
detailed information needed as this cost may be low based
on proposed amenity package.
Operational Revenue Average/good - rentals are most likely low based on market
and Expense (may have too high a percentage of 2-bedroom units) . Costs
should be increased.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- 9-3/4%, 30-years (int. rate may be slightly low
CITY OBJECTIVES Good- meeting -the housing requirements with an attract-
ive and creative project.
SUMMARY A good proposal from a well known Southern California
developer.
*All units will most probably qualify for Section "8".
! 1y 6
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 11
OLD CIVIC CENTER"-SITE I .D. Shapell
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL..IFORN'IA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Shapell Government Housing, Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
: R Building Type 3-story, elevatored/California Modern design
Rental Range, i!
Dwelling'Units Number Sec. "8" (Per'Mo. ) V
All 136 . $316-366
Studio, -7—
One Bedroom 130 $.316
Two Bedroom 6 $366
DEVELOPER-QUAL-IFICATIONS. Good - Shapell Industries (parent company) large Southern
California housing developer; technically and fiscally
strong; govt. housing subsidiary, has had good track record.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average- linkage fair due to open parking in middle .of
project.
Housing For Elderly Fair - unit layout fair, room size acceptable; elevators .
not well positioned.l parking location and availability
fair, limited amenity package.
Senior Citizens Center Average- 2-story bland exterior design with an average
interior layout.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average/Good - total of $3.7 million or $27,000 per unit;
reasonable for proposed project.
Operational Revenue Fair - rents will generally meet Section "8" requirements ,
a and Expense however, operating costs of 24% of gross income very low.
Proposed Financing Acceptable -however, a HUD221 (d)4 has a long processing
time.
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - housing requirements are met with an unimagin-
ative project.
SUMMARY Experienced developer with a limited proposal .
L
f
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 12
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Toman
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /�5/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The Toman Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
i<
Building Type 2- and 3-story, elevatored/Spanish design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 184 100 $250-378
Studio 75 250-300
One Bedroom 129 $283-310
Two Bedroom 30 $335-378
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Good - experienced housing developer with limited ex-
perience in multi -family subidized projects; venture
with Genstar with a very strong financial statement.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average - heavy amount. of open parking in middle; good
linkage and compatibility to surrounding neighborhood.
Housing For Elderly Good - good unit size and design, security good and
elevator location acceptable.
Senior• Citizens Center Average - exterior design acceptable, interior layout is
good.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average..- total of $4.8 mi l l ion.or $26,400 per unit.
Could be about 10% low for proposed plan.
Operational Revenue Average/Good - rental schedule acceptable; vacancy rate
and Expense may be low; financially feasible.
i
Proposed Financing Acceptable -, conventional financing at 9.78% , 29-years.
CITY OBJECTIVES Good - provides housing as required in acceptable project .
SUMMARY Small , but experienced housing developer with strong
financial backing.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 13
OLD 'CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Watt
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Watt Industries , Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
x
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Spanish Design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.) � .
All 148 73 $307-400.
Studio —�
One Bedroom 133 $307-325
Two Bedroom 15 5364-400
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - major southern California company (over . `
25,000 units constructed) with strong financial
position..
DES I'GN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average - stock plan with all surface parking, fair
linkage wand•circulation.
Housing For Elderly Average - one bedrooms small with limited dining
area; distance to elevators from parking; amenity
package light.
Senior Citizens Center Fair - not described in detail . .
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good - $4. 3 million total or $29,000 per unit.
Operational Revenue and Fair/Average - rental rates 10-15% over estimated
Expense market for units proposed; expense projection
acceptable.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- CHFA 71%, 40-year. N
CITY OBJECTIVES Average- will probably meet housing requirements
but projept design is not strong.
SUMMARY A proven developer with financial -strength but
with a limited proposal .
i
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Kohler, City of Huntington Beach DATE: March 7, 1979
FROM: Tim Snow, Urban Projects, Inc.
SUBJECT: Senior Housing Proposals/Old Civic Center Site
In anticipation of next Tuesday's joint Planning/Redevelopment Commission
meeting, I have the following comment* and pose the following questions
regarding the financial aspects of the four developer proposals:
• Goldrich Kest (135 Units -- SB99 financing)
1 . Can they "pencil the deal out with as few as 135 rental units and
with any financing other than SB99?
2. Proposed use of SB99 -- after a number of phone conversations with
Andy Hall (Bond Counsel for Logb, Rhodes & Hornblower) , the follow-
ing are perceived to be areas of possible problems:
Outside bounderies of redevelopment project area: Sec. 33751 .5
of Health and Safety. Code indicates "construction and rehabili-
tation of residences for occupancy by persons of low-income as
defined in Sec. 50093 is properly included within redevelopment
plans whether or not such construction or rehabilitation is to
occur within a redevelopment project area whether or not such
construction or rehabilitation is to occur within a redevelop-
ment project area.--" They can qualify for SB Bond Financing
while not being in a project area but by being in the "territorial
jurisdiction" of the Agency (coterminouswith the corporate bound-
aries) . However, we have not found any evidence of low-income
housing being included in the redevelopment plan of the Golden
West Redevelopment Project and therefore question qualification
on this basis (needs a legal interpretation) .
Possible Referendum: Sec. 33760 of the H b S Code indicates for
housing outside a redevelopment project area that "residential
construction of residences in which the dwelling units are com-
mitted for the period during which the loan is outstanding, for
occupancy by persons of families who are eligible for financial
assistance specifically provided by governmental agency for the
benefit of occupants of the residence." "Eligible for financial
assistance" has generally been interpreted by the legal community
to mean 100 percent subsidized. If this is true, then a refer-
endum on the Old ,Civic Center project would be necessary as
Huntington Beach. does not now have any voter approvals under the
Article 34 Referendum Authority. The subsidy issue, as related
Memorandum
Page Two-
to SB99, could be answered shortly in Brea, where the Agency
is attempting to go to the Fond market with a 25 percent sub-
sidized housing project located outside of a redevelopment
project area (needs legal interpretation) .
• Lyon/Housing Concepts, et al . (156 Units -- CHFA Financing)
1 . Use of CHFA financing (permanent loan of 7 1/2 percent, 40-years) .
- Further indicate that monied for elderly housing are now avail-
able and that a project in Huntington Beach will qualify.
- That Section 8 New Construction Certificates can be obtained
for 49 percent of the contemplated units.
- Can they get a 40-year loan'
- Timing of this entire processing?
2. Copy of opinion letter from counsel for California HCD that a refer-
endum under Article 34 will not be necessary for a 100 percent sub-
sidy program using the follow ni g proposed "tandem" program.
- 51 percent of the units under the Section 8 existing housing
certification program as administered by the Orange County Hous-
ing Authority.
- 49 percent of the units under the Section 8 new housing program.
3. if they use CHFA financing, "all rents must be uniform throughout the
complex for similar type units," If they use the "tandem" program,
then the maximum chargeable rents under the existing unit Section 8
program will be lower than that for new construction. Lyon will then
have committed themselves to a schedule of: Efficiency - $235/month;
i-bedroom - $285/month; 2-bedrpom - $332/month.
4. On the basis of their proposal , their estimated project costs and re-
turns are:
Project Costs: $4,833,338 -- ($30,982 per unit for 156 rental
units or S38.13 per square foot of
gross floor area)
Financing: Debt $h,350,004
Equity 481,334
Total $4,833,338
Memorandum
Page Three
Returns: On Project Costs 8.3 percent
On Equity 6.4 percent
5. What if inflation causes high project costs and developer has fixed
rent schedule, how will developer deal with aspects of a fair return?
Will they cut back amenity package, reduce operating and maintenance
costs, take a lower return, or all of these courses of action?
As an example:
10. percent increase in costs ($5.3 million) provides 7.5 percent
return on costs.
15 percent increase in costs ($5.6 million) provides 7.2 percent
return on costs.
• Ring Brothers (179 Units -- Conventional Financing)
1 . Rental rates and unit mix
- Can they move 86 2-bedroom units in a senior citizens project?
Historically, senior citizens seem to favor 1-bedroom units.
- Rental projections for non-subsidized units (especially 2-bedrooms)
appear to be above the present rental rates for existing non-subsi-
dized Huntington Beach apartment units, i .e. :
Projected Ring Non-Subsidized Percent over
Rents (per mo. )• Market Average Market Average
1-Bedroom $320 $310 3 percent
2-Bedroom $456 $375 22 percent
2. How will Ring achieve these rental rates and still provide acceptable
housing for senior citizens (at an affordable rental rate) ? Are they
willing to some type of agreed upon upper-end lid (on a formula basis)
governing non-subsidized units?
3. In operating proforma, an annual tax figure of $105,727 is indicated.
What is included in this figure (RE tax, income tax, other)?
4. Can Ring Brothers still make a reasonable profit on this project if
costs increase (say 10 percent to 15 percent) because of inflation-
ary factors? Can they still provide the same amenity package as pro-
posed if costs come in higher than projected?
Memorandum
Page Four
• Toman (185 Units -- Conventional Financing)
1 . A total of 100 of the 184 units (54.3 percent) is proposed to be
subsidized. It may be that the, project, as presently structured,
would be subject to an Article 34 Referendum Approval by the Hunting-
ton Beach voters (if free land is interpreted to constitute a form
of public finance) . Needs a legal opinion. Does the developer have -
a comment?
2. Would the Toman company wait to place its permanent loan after com-
mencement of construction or even after project is completed? If so,
how would this speed up the time it takes to complete the project?
What if permanent rates go up in the future and not down?
3. Can Toman still make a reasonable profit on this project if costs
increase. (say 10 to 15 percent) because of inflationary factors?
Can they still provide the same amenity package as proposed if .costs
come in higher than projected?
i. ft
(213)393-7278 871.2120 501 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
SEVENTH FLOOR
SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90401
� f
CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF MONOGRAM INDUSTRIES,INC.
March 6, 1979
Stephen Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Ring Brothers Corporation: Senior Citizen Housing Proposal
Dear Steve :
On February 27 when we presented a proposal for senior citi-
zen housing to the joint meeting of the Planning and Redevel-
opment Commission, certain questions were directed to myself
and our staff in regard to a specific construction cost break-
down and statement of operating expenses . Pursuant to these
questions and a brief discussion with Mr. Snow of Urban Pro-
jects , attached hereto , please find some supplementary figures
which will hopefully clarify any questions . The total numbers
of the original proposal have not changed ; we have only given
a more detailed breakdown of our major cost categories for your
review.
Ring Brothers Corporation has a great deal of experience with
the type of construction proposed here . We are confident of
our cost .projections and strongly support the project and the
economic breakdown as submitted. I believe we have put .ri great
deal of thought and study into the sociological aspects of' this
type of housing as well as the necessary input. and experience
to create the physical facility.
We are sincerely looking forward to the opportunity of working
with the City Council Commission and Staff to create an excep-
tional housing project that will be mutually beneficial to the
senior citizen community, the City of Huntington Beach and Ring
Brothers Corporation.
If you re ire any additional information or clarification, we
would b ore an happy to provide you with additional data .
Si.nc y,
T �r
ary io pson
Vice President , Planning
L ' 1
PRO-FORMA OPERATING STATEMENT
HUNTINGTON BEACH
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROPOSAL
MONTHLY ANNUAL
INCOME
1 Bedroom - 45 @ $283.00/month $ 12,735
. 46 @ $320.00/month 14,720
2 Bedroom - 43 0 $343.00/month 14,749
43 (1 $456.00/month 19,60Ei_,
Rental Income $ 61,812
Vacancy @ 2% (1,236)
Effective Rental Income $ 60,576
Other Income 2,000
Total Income $ 62,576 $ 750,912
EXPENSES
operating
Accounting $ 2,000
Advertising 500
Auto 300
Cleaning 8,000
Gardening 5,000
Management Fee 37,500
Insurance 10,000
Legal 500
Office Supplies and Miscellaneous 1,200
Repair; Maintenance and Reserves 28,950
Salaries 58,000
Telephone 11800
Utilities and Rubbish 12,000
Total Operating Expenses $ 165,750
Operating Income $ 585,162
Financial Expense and Amortization
;. Amortization and Interest $(396,935)
Taxes (105,727)
Return on Equity $ 82,500
CONSTRUCTION COST BREMDOWN
HUNTINGTON $EACH
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROPOSAL
A/C DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
OFFSITE
100 Barricades $ 1,000
112 Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks 40,000
115 Electrical, Underground 10,000
124 Gas, Natural 10,000
127 Grading 10,000
142 Parkway Trees/ Landscaping 5,000
145 Paving, Street Improvements 40,000
154 Sewer 5,000
157 Storm Drain 10,000.
160 Street Lighting 5,000
163 Street Signs 1,000
166 Telephone, TV Cable 3,500
170 Water 4,500
Total Offsite $ 145,000
ONSITE
203 Air Conditioning/ Heating 150,721
206 Aluminum Windows/ .Patio Doors 42,708
208 Appliances 122,365
221 Cabinets 96,094
223 Carpentry, Finish 109,254
224 Carpentry, Rough 246,318
. 227 Cleanup 39,728
231 Concrete, Flatwork 33,124
232 Concrete, Foundations 90,000
234 Concrete, Lightweight 19,268
243 Drapes, Interior Window Cover 23,092
245 Drywall 228,440
248 Electrical Wiring 288,033
249 Electrical Fixtures 10,925
251 Elevators 70,000
254 Fiberglass, Tub/Shower 26,876
256 Fire Equipment 17,579
260 Flooring, Carpets 81,340
261 Flooring, Decking 40,672
Huntington Beach Senior Citizens Housing Proposal Page Two
Construction Cost Breakdown
A/C DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ONSITE (Cont'd)
262 Flooring, Resilient $ 16,313
267 Formica/ Plastic Laminate 21,850
273 Furniture, Common Area 10,000
278 Grading 13,000
282 Hardware, Finish 14,203
289 Insulation 39,400
291 Intercom 20,995
294 Iron, Ornamental 26,171
297 Landscape 81,791
298 Labor 38,735
300 Lumber, Rough 272,072
305 Luminous Ceilings 3,103
307 Marbelene, Pullman Tops 14,675
310 Masonry 11,869
318 Mirrors 6,400
320 Miscellaneous/Contingency 30,670
323 Onsite Drains 17,381
325 Onsite Electrical/ Land. Lights 5,960
327 Onsite Gas 80,878
335 Patios Including Fences .16,388
336 Paving 42,340
343 Plumbing 318,267
354 Repairs/ Replacement 2,500
355 Roofing 45,400
360 Sheet Metal 20,360
378 Stucco 141,533
391 Tub/Shower Enclosures 12,017
395 Waterproofing 6,208
396 Weatherstripping 5,810
Total Onsite $ 3,072,826
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION MISCELLANEOUS
405 Blueprints 9,760
408 Bonds 2,444
410 Architects, Engineers 156,384
412 Construction Office 2,932
419 Fencing, Security 1,955
420 Guards 17,593
422 Inspection/Test Fees 2,944
427 Permits and Fees 97,740
huntington beach planning department
staff
. .report.
TO: Planning and Redevelopment Commissions
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: March 9 , 1979 `
SUBJECT: FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SENIOR HOUSING AND
RECREATION FACILITIES AT OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE.
JOINT SESSION - MARCH 13, 1979
Attached for the Commissions' review is an expanded summary for each
of the, four proposals submitted for consideration. This sumamry includes
a brief staff narrative as well as additional statistical information
regarding each- proposal. In addition, the display materials prepared
by the proponents will be available for review until just prior to the
meeting of March 13, 1979.
The intention of the meeting on March .13 .is to .provide the Commissions
with the opportunity to fully question each proponent. The proponents
have been advised of the meeting and requested to have the respective
project team members available for questioning. Mr . Robert Snow of
Urban Projects, Inc. will also attend this meeting. The proponents will
be invited into the Council Chamber one at a time and will remain until
the Commissions' questioning is complete
At the completion of the questioning, it will be necessary to formulate
the Commissions' recommendations to the City Council. It is suggested
that the Commissions recommend the two proponents in which the Commissions
have the greatest confidence to the City Council for consideration, and
that these two proponents not be assigned a ranking. This will provide
the _Council with the guidance requested of the Commissions, will provide
the -Council with the opportunity to assess the two most appropriate pro-
pos'als, and will provide an immediate alternate should the Council-
selected. developer not perform as required.
Should the Commissioners have any questions regarding the proposals or .
the procedure for the March 13, 1979 meeting, they may contact Mssrs .
Stephen V. Kohler or Patrick Tessier at 536-5541 .
At t'.al'11111011t.s -
SENIOR CITIZEN HO[]SING
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
HUNrINGTCN BEACH, CA 4FOPOUA
NUMBER 4
I.D. GOLDRICH/KEST 1/25/79"
NAME OF DEVIIAPER _ . GOLDRICH, KEST & ASSOCIATES
: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
.Building Type 3-story, elevatoro/modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. 11811 -(per Mo.)
All 135 N/A $290 - $364
Studio
One Bedroom 125 $290
Two Bedroom 10 $364
Unit Size 1 bd/1 bath (A) 550 sq. ft.
I bd/l bath (B) 550 sq. ft.
2 bd/1 bath " (C) 712 sq. ft.
Private Outdoor 1- bd (A) 50 sq. ft. + planter box
1 bd (B) i66 sq. ft. '+ planter box
2 bd (C) 60 sq. ft. + planter box
Apartment Amenities -Limited dining area
-Plan B - "small kitchen and service bar
Limited window/glass area
Ccamon Amenities -(2) Main lcbby.areas a) 750 sq. ft. b) 1000 sq. ft.
-Game roan 336 sq. ft. - TV room 336 sq. ft.
-Arts and crafts `roem 160 sq. ft. - Meeting Roan 1680 sq. ft.
Zbtal Approximately -A kitchen - office (manager) - (2) laundry room per
4260 sq. ft. floor - interior halls have large glass areas
dofi mercial 2600 sq. ft.
DRVRWPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - firm specializes in multi-family housing
(emphasis on subsidized programs) . Developed and managed
over -12,000 units with net uorth of $35 million
DFSIGN FACTO&9
Overall Plan Average-acceptable linkage and building positioning.
Set-backs from streets at a minimun.
1lousinq for Elderly Average/good-interior layout .and size acceptable; 51
.underground parking spaces, security good; lighting
and ventalation ,adequite; ltd. retail space.
Goldrich/Kest
Page 2
Senior Citizen Center Good-13,000 square feet; two-story elevatored;
adequate parking.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good-total of $4.8 million or $32,000 per unit which
is financeable and an adequate allocation.
Operational Revenue Average-rental rates Achieweable. in market; however,
and Ecpense expense allocation (about 28% of gross income) is
low (not itemized)..
Proposed Financing Questionable SB 99; tax exempt
CITY OBJECTIVES . Average•-meets the housing requirements of the Senior
Citizens with an aco"le plan.
SUNMARY Highly experienced developer in government-related
housing programs witt a workable but stock plan.
Staff Narratives
The Goldrich/Kest proposal appears to have some sborteomings. The SB 99 tax exempt
financing mechanism has been investigated by UPI and has been found to have. .�
significant problems. The ompolent of the Goldrich-Kest firm is
highly reputable and currently menages a great many Section 8 projects and the
proposal is enhanced by.the solid financial status of Goldrich-Kest.
This proposal, however, proposes a relatively modest number of units. In addition, .
the integration of uses on the site is, perhaps, less than optimn. Of particular
ooncern is the large area of open parking which divides the site and which may act
as a barrier between the housing units and the public facilities and which occupies
a prominent portion of the site.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
�. HUNTING'PON BEACH, (;ALIFORNIA
NUMBER 5
I.D. LYONS 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER M WILLIAM LYON CCHPANY
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type- 3-story, elevatoFed/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwellinq Units NUmber Sec. "8" (per Mo.)
All .155 155 $232 - .$332
Studio 10 235
Cne Bedroan 137 $285
Two Bedroan 8 $332
Unit Size Studio/1 bath 420 sq. ft.
1 bd/1 bath 537 sq. ft. .
2 bd/1 bath 718 sq. ft.
Outdoor Private Space Studio 56 sq. ft.
1 bd ay. 75 sq. ft.
2 bd ay. 85 sq. ft.
Apartment Amenities -most units have kitchen and service bar
-Large window/glass areas
-All units have dining-area
Common Amenities -Roof-top deck with central laundry facility
-All floors have central lobby/lounge areas
-Large camm ocean view terrace on end of each floor
-Large lobby/lounge area, community roan with kitchen,
facility and arts and crafts area (approximately 4575 sq. ft.)
Commercial 4000 sq. ft.
PtA'1' 01111%1 (XIAIAPTCATTONS Good-major regional hone builder with limited experience
in governmental housing programs; supported by very good
+ t1 - consultant team.
1 1 7�
Overall Plan Very good-strong orientation and linkage with an innovative
use of the land.
llxiusina For Elderly Excellent-good mix of units with well designed dwellings,
amenity package, good security and parking (underground) .
z
William Lyons o
Page 2
Senior Citizen Center Good-2 story layout with good amenity package;
parking 25 spaces below City requirement.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good-total of $4.8 million or $31,000 per unit.
May be as much as 15% low, based on extensive
amenity package.
operational Revenue Good-rents are certainly achievable in existing market;
and acpense allowance for expenses at 28% of gross income should be
increased by about; 15%.
Proposed Financing Aceeptable-CHFA 7�%, 40-year.
CITY .CBJECTIVES Very cpod-this is a creative -proposal; appears to meet
the housing criteria as well as provide a strong,
physical complex.
SUMARY A workable plan by a developer strong in finances
and in experiences.
Staff Narrative:
There appears to be no problem with the immediate or long-teen financial feasi-
bility of this proposal. Although the operational expenses specified in the
proposal seen somewhat low, this should not jeapooi.ze the implementation of
the project.
The Lyon C utpany has assembled a highly reputable and prestigous project team for this
proposal. The members of this project team spent a significant amount of time inter-
viewing senior citizen representatives, and City Staff and did in-depth research regarding
the design, financing, and operation of the proposed facility.
the Lyon Canpany proposal tightly integrates the activities proposed for the site and
provides an acceptable number of housing units without overburdening the site or
damaging the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Some of the architectural
detail of the proposal, however, may require sand adjustment.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOLJSIW3
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NUMBER 10
I.D. RING 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVEMPER RING BROTHERS CORPORATION
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/New England design
Rental Range
Dwellina Units Number Sec. 118" (Per Mo. )
All 179 N/A* $283 - $343
Studio
One Bedrocm 91 $283
Two Bedrocan 86 $343
*All units will.most probably qualify for Section "81'.
Unit Site 1 bd/1 bath 532 sq. ft.
2 bd/1 bath 760 sq. ft.
Outdoor Private 1 bd 58 sq. ft. balcony
2 bd 58 sq. ft. balcony
Apartment Amenities -Kitchen with pantry and service bar
-No dining area
-Each unit/walk-in storage area
-Ample glass areas
Ccmnon Amenities -Greenhouse (1100 sq. ft.)
-Separate laundry building (600 sq. ft.)
-Flower garden area
Vegatable garden
Total 1700 sq. ft. -Sunning court with jacuzzi
-Interior laundry.facilities
Interior corridors ending on open courtyards
Cc- mrcial 3200 sq. ft.
Im-m-10PM,.(XIALTFTCATIONS Very good-multi-family housing specialist, 6,000
apartments and 1,000 condos built and managed; good
financial statement; wholly owned subsidy of Monogram
Ind. ; limited experience in subsidized_ housing.
RING
Page 2
Overall Plan Very good-excellent site plan linkage, and compatibility
to surrounding area.
Housing For Elderly Good-creative building design with good interior and
exterior amenity package; parking open and away from
units; unit size acceptable; 3,200 sq. ft. of retail
senior Citizens Center Very good-attractive, well laid out, with good tie
with library.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average-total of $5.5 million or $30,000 per unit; more
detailed information needed. as this cost may be low
based on proposed amenity package.
Operational Revenue Average/good-rent4ls are .most likely low based on market
and Expense (may have too high a percentage of 2-bedroom units) . Costs
should be increased.
Proposed Financing Acceptable-9-3/4%, 30-years (int. rate may be slightly low) .
SUMMARY A good proposal from a well known Southern California
developer
Staff Narrative:
As with the other proposals, the immediate and long-range financial viability of this
proposal is good. Of some concern is the stated cost of,the project, the projected
rents, and the interest rate for convention financing; all of which appear scnewhat
law.
The Ring Brothers proposal also' makes intense use of the site (proposing the greatest
number of housing units) , and integrates the uses on the site in a manner that would
encourage participation and commmication by its users.
Despite this intense use of the site, the architectural treatment and landscaping proposed
should make the project compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OID CIVIC CENWR SITr
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NUMBER 12
I.D. TIOMAN 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER THE TaAAN COMPANY
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 2-. and 3-story elevatored/Spanish design
Rental Range .
Dwelling Units Number Sec. 11
811 (per Mo.)
All 184 100 $250 - $378
Studio 25 $250 - 300
One Bedroom 129 $283 - $310
Two Bedroom 30 $335 - $378
Unit Size Studio/1 bath 470 sq. ft.
1 bd/1 bath 620 sq. ft.
2 bd/1 bath .770•sq. ft.
Private Outdoor Space Studio 220 sq. ft. semi.-public terrace/walk
1 bd 72 sq. ft. private balcony .
2 bd 72 sq. ft. living room balcony
+ 35 sq. ft. bedroom balcony
Apartment Amenities -All units/outside storage closet
-All units/have dining.area
-All units/kitchen and service counter bar
-Ample glass areas/all units
Common Amenities -Comion laundry room/2 per floor
-Recreation room (1575 sq. ft.)
Total approximately -Game room (625 sq. ft.)
2200 sq. ft. -2 managers offices
Retail/Com►ercial None
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Good-Experienced housing developer with limited
experience in mu1_ti-family subidized projects; venture
with Genstar with a very strong financial statement.
Ill TGN PACTORS
Owlr'111 Plan Average-heavy amount of open parking in middle; good
linkage and compatibility to surrounding neighborhood.
06
THE tX14AS CCMPANY
Paqe 2 .
Housing For Elderly Good-good units size and design, security good and
elevator location acceptable.
Senior Citizen Center Average-exterior design acceptable, 'interior layout 'is
good.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average-total of $4.8 million or $26,400 per unit.
Could be about 10% low for proposed plan.
Operational' Revenue Average/Good-rental schedule acceptable; vacancy rate
and Expense may be low; financially reasible.
Proposed Financing Acceptable-conventional financing at 9.78%, 29 years.
CITY OBJECTIVES Good-provides housing as required in acceptable project,
SLMARY Small, but experienced housing developer with strong
financial backir}g
Staff Narrative:-
While this proposal .appears financially feasibly, the stated project cost and the
operational reserve may be somewhat law. Of grgater concern for the long-term viability
of the project is that the developer intends to'contract for management of the housing
units and since no agent has yet been identified, there can be no evaluation of the
crediatials of the management agent at this time.
'Ihe proposal relys heavily on open pariing located between the housing and the public
facilities. While this is an acceptable approaph it does not achieve the integration and
intensity of uses seen in other proposals. Also, this is the only proposal that does not
include any ccmrercial use on the site. While C' miercial use was not a mandatory portion
of the request for proposal, it would be of benefit to the site users and its inclusion
has become significant in light of the eompetit�on for this project.
• CITY OF HunTin (iTon BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING'AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
.: �. P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
March 19, 1919
Mr. Gary Thompson, . Vice President
Ring Brothers Corporation .
501 Santa Monica Boulevard, Seventh Floor
Santa Monica, California .90401
Subject: Planning and Redevelopment Commissions' Recommendations on
Development of Senior Citizen Facility on Old Civic Center
Site
Dear Mr. Thompson:
It is my pleasure to inform you that your proposal on the subject
project was recommended for consideration by the City Council by
the Planning and Redevelopment .Commissions in joint session on
March 13 , 1979. Your proposal was recommended as the Commissions '
second choice and the William Lyon Company proposal was recommended
as the Commissions' first choice. These recommendations will be
forwarded to the City Council at the Council ' s March 19, 1979
meeting. It is expected that the City Council will establish an
adjourned meeting to consider your proposal for March 26, 1979.
I would like to suggest that you, and the other members of your project
team, attend this adjourned meeting of the Council and be prepared
to make a brief presentation to the Council.
We will be in contact with you to confirm the date of the Council ' s
adjourned meeting and to review the agenda with you. We sincerely
appreciate your efforts on this proposal and look forward to working
with you to present your proposal to the City Council.
Very truly yours,
Stephe K ler
Senior Commu ity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
aw
• . CITY OF RunTin (; Ton BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92618 (714) 536-5271
March 19, 1979
Mr. Brian Norkadias
The William Lyon Company
366 San Miguel Drive, Suite 201
Newport Beach; California 92660
Subject: Planning and Redevelopment . Commissions ' Recommendations
on .Development Of Senior Citizen Facility ()n Old Civic
Center Site
Dear Mr. Norkadias:
It is my pleasure to inform you that the Planning and Redevelopment
Commissions recommended to the City Council your prof-�osal for the
subject project as the first choice at the CommissionE ' joint session
of March 13, 1979 . The proposal .by the Ring Brother. Company was
recommended as the Commissions ' second choice. These recommendations
will be forwarded to the Citv Council at the Council ' s March 19,
1919 meeting. It is expected that the City Council will establish
an adjourned meeting to consider your proposal for March 26, 1979.
I would like to suggest that you, and the other member-3 of your project
team, attend this adjourned meeting of the Council an ] be prepared
to make a brief presentation to the Council.
We will be in contact with you to confirm the date of the Council ' s
adjourned meeting and to review the agenda with you. We sincerely
appreciate your efforts on this proposal and look forvard to working
with you to present your proposal to the City Council.
Very truly u s,
Stephe ohler
Senior Co. unity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
nnin department
huntin9bn p1a 9�
staff
. .
___]report
TO: Planning and Redevelopment Commissions
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: March 9 , 1979
SUBJECT: FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SENIOR HOUSING AND
RECREATION FACILITIES AT OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE.
JOINT SESSION - MARCH 13, 1979
Attached for the Commissions' review is an expanded summary for each
of the four proposals submitted for consideration. This sumamry includes
a brief staff narrative as well as additional statistical information
regarding each proposal. In addition, the display materials prepared
by the proponents will be available for review until just prior to the
meeting of March 13, 1979 .
The intention of the meeting on March 13 is to provide the Commissions
with the opportunity to fully question each proponent. The proponents
have been advised of the meeting and requested to have the respective
project team members available for questioning. Mr. Robert Snow of
Urban Projects, Inc. will also attend this meeting. The proponents will .
be invited into the Council Chamber one at a time and will remain until
the Commissions ' questioning is complete.
i
At the completion of the questioning, it will be necessary to formulate
the Commissions ' recommendations to the City Council. It is suggested
that the Commissions recommend the two proponents in which the Commissions,
j have the greatest confidence to the City Council for consideration, and
that these two proponents not be assigned a ranking. This will provide
the Council with the guidance requested of the Commissions, will provide
the Council with the opportunity to assess the two most appropriate pro
posals , and will provide an immediate alternate should the Council-
selected developer not perform as required.
Should the Commissioners have any questions regarding the proposals or
the procedure for the March 13, 1979 meeting, they may contact Mssrs.
Stephen V. Kohler or Patrick Tessier at 536-5541.
JWP:SVK:df
Attachments _ - -
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NUMBER 4
I.D. GOLDRICH/KFST 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER GOLDRICH, KEST & ASSOCIATES
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. 11
8" (per Mo.)
All 135 N/A $290 - $364
Studio 7
One Bedroom 125 $290
Two Bedroom 10 $364
Unit Size 1 bd/1 bath (A) 550 sq. ft.
1 bd/l bath (B) 550 sq. ft.
2 bd/1 bath (C) 712 sq. ft.
Private Outdoor 1 bd ` (A) 50 sq. ft. + planter box
1 bd '(B) 66 sq. ft. + planter box
2 bd (C) 60 sq. ft. + planter box
Apartment Amenities -Limited dining area
-Plan B - small kitchen and service bar ,'
-Limited window/glass area
Common Amenities -(2) Main lobby areas a) 750 sq. ft. b) 1000 sq. ft.
-Game roan 336 sq. ft. - TV room 336 sq. ft.
-Arts and crafts room 160 sq. ft. - Meeting Roan 1680 sq. ft.
Total Approximately -A kitchen - office (manager) - (2) laundry roan per
4260 sq. ft. floor - interior halls have large glass areas
Commercial 2600 sq. ft.
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - firm specializes in multi-family housing
(emphasis on subsidized programs) . Developed and managed
over 12,000 units with net worth of $35 million
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average-acceptable linkage and building positioning.
Set-backs from streets at a minimum.
Housing for Elderly Average/good-interior layout and size acceptable; 51
underground parking spaces, security good; lighting
and ventilation adequate; ltd. retail space.
Goldrich/Kest
Page 2
Senior Citizen Center Good-13,000 square feet, two-story elevatored;
adequate parking.
FINANCIAL- FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good-total of $4.8 million or $32,000 per unit which
is financeable._and .an.adequate.allocation.
Operational Revenue Average-rental rates achieveable in market; however,
and Expense expense allocation (about 28% of gross income) is
low (not itemized) .
Proposed Financing Questionable SB 99; tax exempt
CITY OBJECTIVES Average-meets. the housing requirements of the Senior
Citizens with an acceptable plan.
SUNMARY Highly experienced developer in government-related
housing programs with a workable but stock plan.
Staff Narrative:
The Goldrich/Kest proposal appears to have some shortcomings. The SB 99 tax exempt
financing mechanism has been investigated by UPI and has been found to have
significant problems. The management component of the Goldrich-Kest firm is
highly reputable and currently manages. a great many Section 8 .projects and the
proposal is enhanced by the solid financial status of Goldrich-Kest.
This proposal, however, proposes a relatively molest number of units. In addition,
the integration of uses on the site is, perhaps, less than optimum. Of particular
goncern is the large area of open parking which divides the site and which may act
as a barrier between the housing units and the public facilities and which occupies
a prominent portion of the site.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NUM6ER 5
I.D. LYONS 1/25/79
W4E OF DEVELOPER THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8 . (per Mo.)
All 155 155 $232 - $332
Studio 10 $235
One Bedroom 137 $285
Two Bedrocen 8 $332
Unit Size Studio/1 bath 420 sq. ft.
1 bd/1 bath 537 sq. ft.
2 bd/l bath 718 sq. ft.
Outdoor Private Space Studio _. _-- 56 sq. ft.
1 bd ay. 75 sq. ft.
2 bd ay. 85 sq. ft.
Apartment Amenities -Most units have kitchen and service barJ
-Large window/glass areas
-All units have dining area
Common Amenities -Roof-top deck with central laundry facility
-All floors have central lobby/lounge areas
-Large common ocean view terrace on end of each floor
-Large lobby/lounge area, community room with kitchen
facility and arts and crafts area (approximately 4575 sq. ft.
Commercial 4000 sq. ft.
DEVELOPER OUALIFICATIONS Good-major regional home builder with limited experience
in governmental housing programs; supported by very good
consultant team.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Very good-strong orientation and linkage with an innovative
use of the land.
Housing For Elderly Excellent-good mix of units with well designed dwellings,
amenity package, good security and parking (underground) .
William Lyons
Paqe 2
Senior Citizen Center Good-2-story layout with good amenity package;
parking 25 spaces below City requirement.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good-total of $4.8 million or $31,000 per unit.
May be as much as 150 low, based on extensive
amenity package.
Operational Revenue Good-rents are certainly achievable in existing market;
and Expense allowance for expenses at 28% of gross income should be
increased by about 15%.
Proposed Financing Acceptable-CHFA 7h%, 40-year.
CITY OBJECTIVES Very good-this is a creative proposal; appears to meet
the housing criteria as well as provide a strong,
physical complex.
SU41ARY A workable plan by a developer strong in finances
and in experiences.
Staff Narrative:
There appears to be no problem with the irm-ediate or long-term financial feasi-
bility of this proposal. Although the operational expenses specified in the
Proposal seem somewhat low, this should not jeapordize the implementation of
the project.
The Lyon Company has assembled a highly reputable and prestigous project team for this
proposal. The members of this project team spent a significant amount of time inter-
viewing senior citizen representatives, and City Staff and did in-depth research regarding
the design, financing, and operation of the proposed facility.
The Lyon Company proposal tightly integrates the activities proposed for the site and
provides an acceptable number of housing units without overburdening the site or
damaging the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Some of the architectural
detail of the proposal, however, may require some adjustment.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NUMBER 10
I.D. RING 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER RING BROTHERS CORPORATION
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/New England design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 179 N/A* $283 - $343
Studio �f
One Bedroom 91 $283
Two Bedroom 86 $343
*All units will most probably qualify for Section "8".
Unit Size 1 bd/1 bath 532 sq. ft.
2 bd/l bath 760 sq. ft.
Outdoor Private 1 bd 58 sq. ft. balcony
2 bd 58 sq. ft. balcony
Apartment Amenities -Kitchen with pantry and service bar
-No dining area
-Each unit/walk-in storage area
-Ample glass areas
Comnon Amenities -Greenhouse (1100 sq. ft.)
-Separate laundry building (600 sq. ft.)
-Flower garden area
-Vegatable garden
Total = 1700 sq. ft. -Sung court with jacuzzi
-Interior laundry-facilities
-Interior corridors ending on open courtyards
Commercial 3200 sq. ft.
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good-multi-family housing specialist, 6y1000
apartments and 1,000 condos built and managed; good
financial statement; wholly owned subsidy of Monogram
Ind.; limited experience in subsidized housing.
RING
Page 2
Overall Plan Very good-excellent site plan linkage and compatibility
to surrounding area.
Housing For Elderly Good-creative building design with good interior and
exterior amenity package; parking open and away from
units; unit size acceptable; 3,200 sq. ft. of retail
Senior Citizens Center Very good-attractive, well laid out, with good tie
with library.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average-total of $5.5 million or $30,000 per unit; more
detailed information needed as this cost may be low
based on proposed amenity package.
Operational Revenue Average/good-rentals are .most likely low based on market
and Expense (may have too high a percentage of 2-bedroom units) . Costs
should be increased.
Proposed Financing Acceptable-9-3/4%, 30-years (int. rate may be slightly low) .
SUMMARY A good proposal from a well known Southern California
developer
Staff Narrative:
As with the other proposals, the inv ediate and long-range financial viability of this
proposal is good. Of some concern is the stated cost of the project, the projected
rents, and the interest rate for convention financing; all of which appear somewhat
low.
'Ihe Ring Brothers proposal also makes intense use of the site (proposing the greatest
number of housing units) , and integrates the uses on the site in a manner that would
encourage participation and communication by its users.
Despite this intense use of the site, the architectural treatment and landscaping proposed
should make the project compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NUMBER 12
I.D. TOMAN 1/25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER THE TOMAN COMPANY
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 2- and 3-story elevatored/Spanish design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (per Nb.)
All 184 100 $250 - $378
Studio 25 250 - 300
One Bedroom 129 $283 - $310
TWo Bedroom 30 $335 - $378
Unit Size Studio/1 bath 470 sq. ft.
1 bd/1 bath 620 sq, ft.
2 bd/l bath 770 sq. ft.
Private Outdoor Space Studio 220 sq. ft. semi-public terrace/walk
1 bd . 72 sq. ft. private balcony
2 bd 72 sq. ft. living room balcony
+ 35 sq. ft. bedroom balcony
Apartment Amenities -All units/outside storage closet
-All units/have dining area
-All units/kitchen and service counter bar
-Ample glass areas/all units
Common Amenities -Common laundry room/2 per floor
-Recreation room (1575 sq. ft.)
Total approximately -Game room (625 sq. ft.)
2200 sq. ft. -2 managers offices
Retail/Commercial None
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Good-Experienced housing developer with limited
experience in multi-family subidized projects; venture
with Genstar with a very strong financial statement.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average-heavy amount of open parking in middle; good
linkage and campatibility to surrounding neighborhood.
THE 'IOMAS COMPANY
Paqe 2
Housing For Elderly Good-good units size and design, security good and
elevator location acceptable.
Senior Citizen Center Average-exterior design acceptable, interior layout is
good.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average-total of $4.8 million or $26,400 per unit.
Could be about 100 low for proposed plan.
Operational Revenue Average/Good-rental schedule acceptable; vacancy rate
and Expense may be low; financially reasible.
Proposed Financing Acceptable-conventional financing at 9.78%, 29 years.
CITv OBJECTIVES Good-provides housing as required in acceptable project.
SUMMARY Small, but experienced housing developer with strong
financial backing
Staff Narrative:
while this proposal appears financially feasible, the stated project cost and the
operational reserve may be somewhat low. Of greater concern for the long-term viability
of the project is that the developer intends to contract for management of the housing
units and since no agent has yet been identified, there can be no evaluation of the
crediatials of the management agent at this time.
The proposal relys heavily on open parking located between the housing and the public
facilities. While this is an acceptable approach it does not achieve the integration and
intensity of uses seen in other proposals. Also, this is the only proposal that does not
include any commercial use on the site. While commercial use was not a mandatory portion
of the request for proposal, it would be of benefit to the site users and its inclusion
has become significant in light of the competition for this project.
® CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
March 2, 1979
` Mr. Manny Aftergut
Director of Planning
Goldrich Kest & Associates
816 Union Bank Plaza
15233 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Subject: Senior Citizen Housing Proposals
Old Civic Center Site
Dear Mr. Aftergut:
On behalf of the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions, I would
like to thank you and the other members of your project team for
your attendance at the February 27, 1979, joint session of the
Commissions. The Commission members have related to me their
pleasure at the high caliber of all the four proposals.
The visual aids which you have left in our custody have been on
display in a room accessible only to the Commissioners and staff
throughout the week. In this way, we have assured the safety
and security of your displays and it is anticipated that each of
the Commissioners will take advantage of this opportunity to
scrutinize your proposal more closely,
The Commissions will meet again in joint session on March 13, 1979
at 7 :00 p.m. to finalize the recommendations to the City Council .
Since the Commissioners will be formulating additional questions for
you in the interview, I would like to suggest that you and your
project team be present on March 13, 1979.
In the meantime, if I may be of any assistance to you, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (714) 536-5541. I look forward to
seeing you on March 13, 1979.
Very truly ours,
Step o Step-hen V. Khler
Senioryommunity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271
March 2, 1979
Mr. Charles Ring
Ring Brothers Development Corp.
501 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90401
Subject: Senior Citizen Housing Proposals
Old Civic Center Site
Dear Mr. Ring:
On behalf of the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions, I would
like to thank you and the other members of your project team for
your attendance at the February 27, 1979, joint session of the
Commissions. The Commission members have related to me their
pleasure at the high caliber of all the four proposals.
The visual aids which you have left in our custody have been on
display in a room accessible only to the Commissioners and staff
throughout the week. In this way, we have assured the safety
and security of your displays and it is anticipated that each of
the Commissioners will take advantage .of this opportunity to
scrutinize your proposal more closely.
The Commissions will meet again in joint session on March 13, 1979
at 7 : 00 p.m. to finalize the recommendations to the City Council .
Since the Commissioners will be formulating additional questions for
you in the interview, I would like to suggest that you and your
project team be present on March 13 , 1979.
In the meantime, if I may be of any assistance to you, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (714) 536-5541. I look forward to
seeing you on March 13, 1979.
Very truly yours,
Step en Ko 1 e r
Senior Community Development Specialist
SVK: gc
® CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH
®� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
March 2, 1979
Mr. Warren Toman, President
The Toman Company
18002 Skypark Circle
Irvine, California 92714
Subject: Senior Citizen. Housing Proposals
Old Civic Center Site
Dear Mr. Toman:
On behalf of the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions, I would
like to thank you and the other members of your project team for
your attendance at the February 27, 1979, joint session of the
Commissions. The Commission members have related to me their
pleasure at the high caliber of all the four proposals.
The visual aids which you have left in our custody have been on
display in a room accessible only to the Commissioners and staff
throughout the week. In this wav, we have assured the safety
and security of your displays and it is anticipated that each of
the Commissioners will take advantage of this opportunity to
scrutinize your proposal more closely.
The Commissions will meet again in joint session on March 13 , 1979
at 7 : 00 p.m. to finalize the recommendations to the City Council.
Since the Commissioners will be formulating additional questions for
you in the interview, I would like to suggest that you and your
project team be present on March 13, 1979.
In the meantime, if I may be of any assistance to you, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (714) 536-5541. I look forward to
seeing you on March 13, 1979.
Very trul yo rs,
tep e. V Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
SVK:gc
• CITY OF HunTInGTOn BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271
March 2, 1979
Mr. Brian A—r�
The William Lyon Company
366 San Miguel.
Newport Beach, California 926.60
Subject: Senior Citizen Housing Proposals .
Old Civic Center Site
Dear Mr. Arcadas:
On behalf of the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions, I would
like to thank you and the other members of your project team for
your attendance at the February 27, 1979, joint session of the
~Commissions. The Commission members have related to their_
pleasure at the high caliber of all the four proposals.
The visual aids which -you have left in our custody have been on
display in a room accessible only to the Commissioners and staff
throughout the week. In this way, we have assured the safety
and security of your displays and it is anticipated that each of
the Commissioners will .take advantage , of this opportunity to
scrutinize your proposal more closely.
The Commissions will meet again in joint .session on Ma`r.ch 13., 1979
at 7: 00 p.m. to finalize the recommendations to the City Council.
Since the Commissioners will be formulating additional questions for
you in the interview, I would like to suggest that you and your
project team be present on March 13, 1979.
In the meantime, . if I may be of 'any assistance to you, Please do
not hesitate to contact me at. (714) 536-5541. I look forward to
seeing you on March 13, 1979.
Very truly ours,
-� Stephen/ Kohler
Senior /Community Development Specialist
SVK:gc
a
huntington bith planning department
staff
- �eport
TO: Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: February 23, 1979
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSALS FOR OLD CIVIC
CENTER SITE - JOINT SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 197.9 .
INTRODUCTION•
On September 18, 1978, the City Council endorsed -.the use .of the
Old Civic Center site for senior housing and recreation facilities
and authorized staff to distribute a request for proposals. The
dead_ line �for. the submission of proposals was December 22 , 1978,
and on that date,. staff received thirteen proposals. These pro-
posals and the staff recommendations concerning them, will be the
subject of the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions' joint session
of February 27, 1979.
BACKGROUND:
Since receipt of the thirteen proposals, - staff, with the assistance
of Urban Projects, Inc. , has closely reviewed all proposals and
requested proponents to provide additional information when necessary
to clarify the content of a proposal.
To facilitate this review, a uniform set of criteria were established,
by staff and Urban Projects and distributed to proponents prior to
the submission deadline. These review criteria are attached as part
of the request- for proposal packet (buff attachment) . These criteria
concentrated.. on five major areas of concern:
a. Developer Qualifications and Capabilities
b. Design Factors
C. Financial Feasibility
d. Operating Feasibility
e. City Objectives
Also attached is a summary of the outcome of this review for each of
the thirteen proposals. For the convenience of- the Commissions '
review, staff comments are confined to one page per proposal (white
attachment)- .
Page Two
While some proposals may have ranked high in one or more categories,
the four proposals recommended for consideration by the Planning
and Redevelopment Commissions were selected because they ranked
highest in all of the review categories listed -dbove. - The pro-
ponents of these four most desirable and feasible proposals are:
Goldrich-Kest & Associates
The William Lyon Company
Ring Brothers
The Toman Company
Representatives of these proponents will be present to make a
presentation at the joint session.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommended order of action for the joint session of February 27,
1979 is as follows:
1. Staff Overview of Project
2. Presentation by Proponents (30 min. limit each including questions) .
3. General Discussion by Planning and Redevelopment Commissions
4. Continuation of Discussion to March 13, 1979*.
*Since it is anticipated that further discussion will be necessary
it is suggested that an additional joint session be scheduled.
SVK:gc
Encl.
DRAFT
HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPER EVALUATION CRITERIA
A. DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS AND CAPABILITIES
1 . Previous Experience:
a. Housing
- generally
- multi-family
- subsidized
- elderly
b. Rehab
c. Commercial
d. Performance of Developed Projects
e. Reputation in Industry
f. Qualifications of Design Team
2. Financial Strength
a. Net Worth
b. Banking Connections
c. Credit References - D & B Rating
d. Sources of Financing
- interim
- take-out
B. DESIGN FACTORS
1 . Site Plan
a. Density, Number of Units
b. Open Space
c. Linkages, Units, Senior Center, Library
d. Orientation to Surrounding Environment
e. Retention of Specimen Trees
f. Landscaping
-2-
2. Amenity Package
a. Indoor Facilities
b. Outdoor Facilities
c. Parking
3. Unit Design
a. Unit Mix - 1 Bedroom, 2 Bedroom, Studio
b. Unit Size, Square Footage
c. Light, Ventilation
d. Unit Features
- Amenities
- Special Elderly Features, i .e. , grab bars, wider doorways,
shower seats, etc.
e. Floor Plan
4. Building Configuration
a. Number of Stories
b. Design Diversity
c. Cost Effectiveness (net useable space both interior and exterior)
5• Outer Design Factors
a. Compatibility with Neighborhood
b. Energy Efficiency
C. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
1 . Development Costs
a. Site-Preparation
b. Direct Construction
c. Amenity and Landscaping
d. Indirect Costs
interim financing, including loan points
G & A
architecture and engineering fees
legal and accounting
- marketing
- insurance, closing costs, and miscellaneous fees
-3-
(� OPERATING FEASIBILITY
a. Test Rental Rate Assumptions, Marketability of Non-
Subsidized Units
b. Number of Section 8 Units
- Do they meet HUD standards?
c. Gross Revenue
d. Vacancy Allowance
e. Operating Costs
- real estate taxes (in this case, whereby the City maintains
land ownership, possessory interest taxes will apply)
- insurance
- utilities - gas, water, electricity
- elevator maintenance and reserve
- landscape maintenance and reserve
- rubbish collection
- replacement reserves - roof, appliances, paint, carpets, etc.
- ongoing building maintenance
- janitorial
- resident manager
- legal and accounting
- management fees
f. Cash Flow and Rate of Return
- capitalized value of operating income stream
- probable amount and terms of interim and take-out financing
- developer equity requirements
- after debt-service cash flow
- cash flow return on investment (ROT)
- justification of City subsidy
D. CITY OBJECTIVES
a. Number and Percent of Subsidized Units
\� b. Fiscal Impact
`►/ - Revenues (possessory interest taxes, fees and licenses, per
cap subventions, sales tax generation, etc. )
.... .......
-4-
Costs (direct subsidy, municipal services)
c. Completeness of Proposals - Commitment to" All Elements' of
Program or Just Parts
• CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH
J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
January 31, 1979
SUBJECT: Senior Citizen Housing Proposals
Old Civic Center Site
Dear Senior Housing Proponent:
Since receiving your proposal for development of the City' s Old
Civic Center site, we have been actively engaged in the review
of all thirteen proposals received. We have been assisted in
our review by the consulting firm of Urban Projects, Inc. The
initial review of Proposals is now complete.
The results of the review will be announced within the next ten
(10) days, and you may expect written communication regarding the
status of your proposal within this time. The proposals recommended
for further consideration will be forwarded to the Planning and Re-
development Commissions prior to a joint session of these bodies
tentatively scheduled for February 13, 1970. The sponsors of the
recommended proposals will be asked to aT_2�ar at this joint session
and will be contacted regarding the details of participation at the
joint session, subsequent to the announcement of the outcome of our
review.
Due to the number of proposals received, it will not be possible to
communicate personally with each of you prior to our announcement
and I would like to request your patience for the next few days.
Very truly yours,
Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
9
SVK:gc
I�
REVISED
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator DATE: 1/30/79
FROM: Stephen V. Kohler , Senior Community Development Specialist
SUBJECT: Proposals for Senior Housing / Old Civic Center Site
As you may know, the City of Huntington Beach has received 13 proposals from
developers in response to our RFP for Senior Housing and Recreational Facili -
ties on the Old Civic Center site. A list of these California developers is
attached to this memorandum. We feel that the proposals were well thought
out, complete and, for the most part , realistic. We are fortunate to have
received proposals from a number of the leading California housing builders.
Our staff, assisted by Urban Projects, Inc. (our development advisors) , has
carefully reviewed each of the individual proposals and has evaluated each
on the basis of a set of preestablished factors entitled "Huntington Beach
Developer Evaluation Criteria". We have evaluated each of these proposals
based upon: developer experience, design factors, financial reasonability
and City benefits. A summary of our evaluation process of each of the 13
proposals is made a part of this memorandum.
It is our recommendation that the City Council (or a Housing Committee,
appointed by the Council) hear a verbal presentation from a select number
of the developers who have made proposals. These presentations should, un-
less deemed otherwise, be limited to about four firms. Based on our evalu-
ation , we recommend that the following four firms be interviewed:
Goldrich Kest & Associates
The William Lyon Company
Ring Brothers
The Toman Company
A number of the other firms could very well develop an acceptable senior
citizens housing project on the Old Civic Center site. In our evaluation
process we also felt that the proposals from Watt Industries and Mayer
Government Housing had specific merit in certain areas.
We recommend that a single developer be selected as a result of the inter-
view process and that the City negotiate with that firm on an exclusive
basis.
I
List of Developers
1 . The Hall Partners/Warmington Development Company
2. Calmark Properties, Inc.
3. The Klein Group, et al .
4. Goldrich, Kest & Associates
5. The William Lyon Company
6. Mayer Government Housing, Inc.
7. National Housing Consultants , Inc: #1
8. National Housing Consultants , Inc. #2
9. The R. H. Klein Company
10. Ring Brothers Corporation
11 . Shapell Government Housing, Inc.
1.2. The Toman Company
13. Watt Industries, Inc.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 1
OLD CIVIC. CENTER SITE I .D. Hall
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALI•FORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The Hall Partners / Warmington Development Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 150 75 $306-450
Studio �—
One Bedroom 105 $306-340
Two Bedroom 45 $364-450
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Limited experience in multifamily subsidized housing
(Hall_ - commercial ; Warmington - single-family resi-
dential) . Below average financial resources.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Relatively good - set-backs and linkages good; parking all
surface and exposed; 120 spaces meet project requirements.
Housing For Elderly Average - unit size and layout acceptable - narrow in-
terior courtyards , amenity package limited.
Sen.ior• Citizens Center Average - structure not well defined; well integrated
into existing library.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average - Limited cost breakdown provided; however , a cost
of $4.4 million or $29,600 appears to be reasonable for
the proposed project.
Operational Revenue Fair - projected rental rates 20% to 25% over current
and Expense H.B. market ; operating costs and reserve for replacement
low by industry standards and questionable
Proposed Financing Acceptable - conventional (10-3/4%, 30-year)
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - provides adequate number of Section "8"
housing.
SUMMARY Financially questionable proposal by inexperienced
developers in the area of subsidized, multi-tenant
housing.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 2
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Calmark
HUNT I NGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/7 9
NAME OF DEVELOPER Calmark Properties, Inc.
' HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 2-story, non-elevator/Mediterranean Style
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo. )
All 148 148 $235-250
Studio 0
One Bedroom 124 $235
Two Bedroom 24 $250
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Average to good - developed and managed over 12,000 multi-
family units in So. Cal . (3 senior citizen projects) ;
net worth of $4.8 million fairly low.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Fair - high building coverage on housing land area; mass
of open parking facing Sixth St. ; acceptable linkage.
Housing For Elderly Fair - units 15% to 20% too small ; spartan plan as to
exterior facial and amenity package; security poor;
no consideration for handicapped needs.
Senior Citizens Center .. Fair - elongated building with limited explanation of
interior layout plan.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average = $2.7 million or $18,000 per unit lowest of
proposals but is for a truly low cost project.
Operational Revenue Average - rents on the low end of the scale with a
and Expense correspondingly limited expense allowance.
Proposed Financing Acceptable - as to conventional financing (101%, 30-
year) .
CITY OBJECTIVES Average to Fair - provides "affordable" housing for
elderly but in a very spartanic environment.
SUMMARY Experienced but undercapitalized developer proposing
to build a "typical" garden apartment complex.
1 1
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 3
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Klein/Turner
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALI_FORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The Klein =Group, et al .
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Colonial design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo. )
All 156 0 $400-480
Studio 0
One Bedroom 120 $400
Two Bedroom 36 $480
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Klein has experience in subsidized housing development;
however, a newly formed firm in a new joint venture
with limited capital resources.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average/good - good linkage landscaping and building
sighting plan.
Housing For Elderly Good —spacious rooms, well laid out with
and extensive amenity package. Massive building with
heavy site coverage, abundance of covered parking.
Senior• Citizens Center Average - well located on site; limited description of
interior layout.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Fair - $6.3 million or $40,000 per unit is 20% to' 30%
more than that which is reasonable for the envisioned
senior citizens project.
Operational Revenue Poor_= high construction costs. and heavy amenity package
and Expense has forced a rental program which is not in conformance
to Section "8" standards and 20% above the existing H.B.
conventional housing market.
Proposed Financing Fair = a CHFA loan the size requested is unlikely;
municipal bonds are out.
CITY OBJECTIVES Fair,- pricing structure is out of reach -of proposed
users.
SUMMARY Developer has presented a proposal which is question
able for Senior Citizen Housing. ' It is basically over-
designed for the market intended.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 4
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Goldrich/Kest
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Goldrich, Kest & Associates
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 135 N/A . $290-364
Studio __T_
One Bedroom 125 $2+90
Two Bedroom 10 $364
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - firm specializes in multi-family housing
(emphasis on subsidized programs) . Developed and
managed over 12 ,000 units with net worth of $35 million.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average- acceptable linkage and building positioning.
Set-backs from streets at a minimum.
Housing For Elderly Average/good -' interior layout and size acceptable; 51
underground parking spaces , security good; lighting
and ventilation adequate; ltd. retail space.
Senior Citizens Center Good - 13, 000 square feet; two-story elevatored; ade-
quate parking.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good:.- total of $4. 8 million or $32,000 per unit which
is financeable and an adequate allocation.
Operational Revenue Average - rental rates achieveable in market; however ;
and Expense expense allocation (about 28% of gross income) is low
(not i te,�i zed) .
Proposed Financing Acceptable - CHFA 71%, 30-years.
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - meets the housing requirements of the Senior
Citizens with an acceptable plan.
SUMMARY Highly experienced developer in government-related
housing programs with a workable but stock plan.
r
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number .
OLD CIVIC CENTER 'SITE I .D. Lyons
HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER . The William Lyon Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 155 155 5235-332
Studio 10 235
One Bedroom . 1.37 $285
Two Bedroom 8 $332
DEVELOPER.QUALIFICATIONS Good -major regional home builder with limited ex-
perience in governmental housing programs; supported
by very good consultant team.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Very good - strong orientation and .linkage with an inno-
vative use of the land.
.Housing. For Elderly Excellent - good mix of units with well designed dwellings ,
amenity package, good security and parking (underground) .
Includes 4,000 square feet of retail space.
Senior- Citizens Center Good- 2-story layout with good amenity package; parking.
25 spaces below City requiirement.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good - total of $4. 8 million or $31 ,000 per unit. May be
as much as 15% low, based on extensive amenity package.
Operational Revenue Good " rents are certainly achievable in existing market;
and- Expense allowance for expenses at 28% of gross income should be
increased by about 15%.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- CHFA 7A, 40-year
CITY OBJECTIVES . Very good - this is a creative proposal';' appears to meet
the housing criteria as well as providea strong, physical
complex.
SUMMARY A_ workable plan by a developer strong in finances and
in experience.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 6
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. _Mayer
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Mayer Government Housing Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Spanish design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 184 ill $2801336
Studio --(T--
One Bedroom 166 $280
Two Bedroom 18 $336
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good- largest housing developer in So. Cal . (spe-
cializes in multi-family) ; strong financial capacity
(no statement provided) . Ltd. govt . programs experience.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan -Fair/average - fair site coverage and linkage with
little landscaping proposed.
Housing For Elderly Fair- small units which are not well laid out; limited
amenity package. Elevators poorly spaced
Senior Citizens Center Fair- little outside lighting.
c
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average-9 $3.9 million or $19,000 per unit; appears to
be 15 to 20% low; developer claims that he is not tak-
ing any profit on construction.
Operational Revenue Average - rental range most acceptable; expenses some-
and Expense what low.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- finance construction from commercial loan
with conventional take-out at later time
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - meets housing demands but project lacks de-
sign interest or linkage.
SUMMARY Excellent developer (who has successfully built projects
with a low prof i.t margin) with a minimum plan for the
subject site.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 7
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. National #1
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER National Housing Consultants, Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 9-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per-Mo.)
J
All 208 N/A �3121370
Studio T—
One Bedroom 196 $312
Two Bedroom 12 $370
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Fair - limited development of housing; do have a 200-
unit high-rise Senior Citizens project in Santa Ana.
Limited financial strength.
DESIGN FACTORS
Average - high-rise residential building, abutting ad-
Overall Plan joining single-family neighborhood on S.ixth .Street,
linkage circulation and landscaping acceptable.
Housing For Elderly Fair - site density is high, unit size and design pass-
able; good amenity package.
Senior Citizens Center Fair - layout good but has less than 50% of the off-
street parking requested by the City.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Fair/Poor - $4.6 million or 531 ,000 per unit; question-
ably low for a high-rise building.
Operational Revenue Average/Fair - revenues appear to be achievable; how-
and Expense ever, a high (9-9W management -fee indicated and a
low reserve for replacement.
Proposed Financing Conventional. fi-nancing of 91, . 30-years generally not
available i.n present market.
CITY OBJECTIVES Fair - this proposal does not appear to meet. apparent
City objectives for the project.
SUMMARY Somewhat inexperienced developer with a proposed
complex high-rise building.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 8
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D.National/##2
HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA 1 /25/7 9
NAME OF DEVELOPER National Housing Consultants, Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type Combination of 6-story and 3-story buildings
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo. )
All 209 N/A $312 - 370
Studio �—
One Bedroom 201 $312
Two Bedroom $ $370
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Same as Proposal No. 7
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Same as Proposal No. 7
Housing For Elderly
Senior* Citizens Center
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Same as Proposal No. 7
Operational Revenue
and Expense
Proposed Financing
CITY OBJECTIVES
SUMMARY Same as Proposal No. 7
I
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 9
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Klein Co.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The R. -H. Klein Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 5-story, elevatored/Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" . (Per Mo.)
All 159 0 $409
Studio �—
One Bedroom 159 $409
Two Bedroom 0
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Ave rage/Fai.r- developer has consulted and _undertaken sub-
sidized housing programs; managed 4,500 units; financial
capacity unknown.
DESIGN FACTORS
Average/Fair- buidling mass on west side of site, large
Overall .Plan open parking area on Sixth St.. , linkage acceptable , cir-
culation average.
Housing For Elderly Fair. - all units one bedroon., no mix., -poor .untt design
and interior layout.
Senior Citizens Center Average/Fair - renovation of fire station, interior
space limitations , inadequate parking.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Fair - total of $6.1 million or $38,000 per -unit.
Operational Revenue Poor - rental rates substantially above criteria for
and Expense Section "8", as well as the existing .H.B. market.
Proposed Financing
. .CITY OBJECTIVES Fair.- does not meet housing requirements.
SUMMARY Rental rates , unit mix and design generally not in
conformance w:it.h project objectives and/or market
cond i t•i ons..
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 10
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Ring
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Ring Brothers. Corporation
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/ New England design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo. )
All 179 N/A* $283-343
Studio 0
One Bedroom 91 $283
Two Bedroom 86 $343
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - multi-family housing specialist , 6,000 aPts.
and 1 ,000 condos built and managed, good financial state-
ment; wholly owned subsidy of Monogram Ind. , limited exp.
DESIGN FACTORS in subsidized housing.
Overall Plan Very good - excellent site plan linkage and compatibility
to surrounding area.
Housing For Elderly Good - creative building design with good interior and
exterior amenity package; parking open and away from
units ; unit size acceptable; 3,200 sq.ft. of retail .
Senior• Citizens Center Very good - attractive, well laid out, with good tie
with the library.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average - total of $5.5 million or $30,000 per unit ; more
detailed information needed as this cost may be low based
on proposed amenity package.
Operational Revenue Average/good - rentals are most likely low based on market
and Expense. (may have too high a percentage. of 2-bedroom units) . Costs
should be increased.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- 9-3/40, 30-years (int. rate may be slightly low)
CITY OBJECTIVES Good- meeting -the housing requirements with an attract-
ive and creative project.
SUMMARY A good proposal from a well known Southern California
developer.
*All units will most probably qualify for Section "8".
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 11
OLD' CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Shapell
HUNTINGTON. B.EACH, CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Shapell Government Housing, Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/California Modern design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo. )
All 136 $316-366
Studio _—
One Bedroom 130 $316
Two Bedroom 6 . $366
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Good - Shapell.. lndustries (parent company) large Southern
California housing. developer; technically and fiscally
strong; govt. housing subsidiary, has had good track record.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average- linkage fair due to open parking in middle of
project.
Housing For Elderly Fair - unit layout fair, room size acceptable; elevators
not well positioned; parking location and availability
fair; limited amenity package.
Senior Citizens Center Average- 2-story bland exterior design with an average
interior layout.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average/Good - total of $3.7 million or $27,000 per unit;
reasonable for proposed project.
Operational . Revenue Fair - rents will generally meet Section ''8" requirements ,
and Expense however, operating costs of 24% of gross income very low.
Proposed Financing Acceptable - however, a HUD221 (d)4 has a long processing
time.
CITY OBJECTIVES Average - housing requirements are met with an unimagin-
ative project.
SUMMARY Experienced developer with a limited proposal .
o
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number 12
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Toman
HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA 1 /25/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER The Toman Company
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 2- and 3-story, elevatored/Spanish design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 184 100 $250-378
Studio �$— 250-300
One Bedroom 129 $283-310
Two Bedroom 30 $335-378
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Good - experienced housing developer with limited ex-
perience in multi -family subidized projects; venture
with Genstar with a very strong financial statement.
DESIGN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average - heavy amount of open parking in middle; good
linkage and compatibility to surrounding neighborhood.
Housing For Elderly Good - good unit s.ize and design, security good and
elevator location acceptable.
Senior' Citizens Center Average - exterior design acceptable, interior layout is
good.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Average:- total of $4.8 million.or $26,400 per unit.
Could be about 10% low for proposed plan.
Operational Revenue Average/Good - rental schedule acceptable; vacancy rate
and Expense may be low; financially feasible.
Proposed Financing Acceptable - conventional financing at 9.78%, 29-years.
CITY OBJECTIVES Good - provides housing as required in acceptable project.
SUMMARY Small , but experienced housing developer with strong
financial backing.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Number _ 13 _
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE I .D. Watt
HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA 1 /�5/79
NAME OF DEVELOPER Watt Industries , Inc.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Type 3-story, elevatored/Spanish Design
Rental Range
Dwelling Units Number Sec. "8" (Per Mo.)
All 148 73 $307-400
Studio _
One Bedroom 133 $307-325
Two Bedroom 15 $364-400
DEVELOPER QUALIFICATIONS Very good - major southern California company (over
25,000 units constructed) with strong financial
position.
DES I'GN FACTORS
Overall Plan Average - stock plan with all surface parking, fair
linkage wand'circulation.
Housing For Elderly Average - one bedrooms small with limited dining
area; distance to elevators from parking; amenity
package light.
Senior Citizens Center Fair - not described in detail . .
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Project Cost Good - $4. 3 million total or $29,000 per .unit.
Operational Revenue and Fair/Average - rental rates 10-15% over estimated
Expense market for units proposed; expense projection
acceptable.
Proposed Financing Acceptable- CHFA 71%, 40-year.
CITY OBJECTIVES Average- will probably meet housing requirements
but project design is not strong.
SUMMARY A proven developer with financial strength but
with a limited proposal .
UNION
BAN K
January 24, 1979
Mr. Steve V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
We have been requested by our good customer The William
Lyon Company to share with you our experience in connection
with their application for consideration of the development of
Section 8 housing in your city.
The William Lyon Company is a privately held, residential
development company that was incorporated in 1972. William
Lyon, the founder and principal stockholder has been. a residen-
tial developer since the 1940's and has been a customer of Union
Bank since 1950.
Our credit to the company consists of a medium seven figure
unsecured line of credit under which no loans are presently out-
standing. We also provide construction financing which has
reached a high of a low eight figures. Checking account balances
have averaged a medium six figures. The credit and depository
relationships are being handled in a satisfactory manner.
We are very pleased with the management of this, company
and the direction in which the company is going. We would be
pleased to entertain their request for financing of this Section 8
project. If I may be of further service, please call me at: 714-
558-5223.
Very tr
�u4 yours,
A. R.Ma chese
Vice President
ARM:bb
Orange County Regional Head Office• 500 South Main Street•Orange.California 92668• (714)558-5208
P.O. Box 1057 •Orange,California 92668 - `�
� 1719 STEWART ST.
WATT i��TTLr11lJ ST=S, INC. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406
(213) 829-3431
January 18, 1979
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
. Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE. : Senior Citizen. Housing Proposals
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Pursuant to my conversation.with Phil Stukin of Urban Projects, Inc. ,
this letter will serve to confirm that our proposal to you for the
above referenced project, dated December 22, 1978, is being submitted
by Watt Industries, Inc. There is no involvement of any joint venture
entity.
By way. of clarification, please be advised that both Don Petersen of
Pacific Management and the undersigned, are both employees of Watt
Industries, Inc. Furthermore, in the event that we are awarded this
project, Mr. R. A. Watt will be personally guiding the management team
of this project. This is consistent with Mr. Watt's awareness of and
'involvement with government agencies' efforts to answer the needs of
community housing problems.
We are very enthusiastic-about this project and are looking forward to
working with the City to bring-'this venture to a successful conclusion.
If there are any questions, please do- not hesitate to call me.
Yours very truly,
WATT INDUSTRIES, INC.
F. W. Parker
FWP:em
cc: Phil Stukin
R. A. Watt
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Kohler DATE: January 17, 1979
FROM: Phil Stukin, Urban Projects, Inc.
SUBJECT: Follow-up calls , Huntington Beach Senior Citizens Project
1 . WATT INDUSTRIES, INC.
Contact: Mick Parker , Project Administrator (213) 277-5141
Information Requested: What is development entity, how does it relate
to Watt Industries , personal involvement of Ray
Watt?
Response: Project will be developed by-Watt Industries
directly. Parker , the designated project manager,
is an employee of. Watt Industries. When completed ,
project will be managed by Pacific Management, a
division of Watt Industries , Ray Watt will be per-
sonally involved. Letter from Parker to follow.
2. THE TOMAN COMPANY
Contact: Warren Toman , President (714) 549-8466
Information Requested: Construction cost breakdown , vacancy rate, avail-
ability of 9.78%, 30-year financing, first floor
units - below grade, can mass be redesigned:
Response: Cost breakdown will be provided. Anticipates turn-
over vacancy only. First floor units do not show
on rendering because (1 ) some are buffered from
the street by a burm; (2) the side of the building
facing existing residential area is only two ,
stories. Interest rate based on the assumption
that by time project is ready to go to the money
market , rates will have adjusted downward. Design
can be modified if requested, basic premise for
current design is that surface parking provides
buffer between private apartments and public
senior center. Also, after 5: 30 p.m. , when center
closes , spaces will be available to guests of
tenants. Letter to follow.
3. MAYER GOVERNMENTAL HOUSING, INC.
Contact: Robert Lunny, Vice President (213) 927-3341
Information Requested: Number of parking spaces, amenity package , finan-
cial statement , expanded -financial proforma.
Memorandum
January 17, 1979
Page 2
Response: Sixty parking spaces total (30 under each build-
ing) . Amenity package covered on pages eight
and nine of proposal . Financial statement to be
provided as well as more detail on financing and
operating statements.
4. WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
Contact : Reed Flory, Housing Concepts (714) 540-8245
Information Requested: Feasibility of proposed CFHA financing program.
Financial statement.
Response: Independent checking on the proposed financing
program with California Department of Housing
and Community Development indicated that it is
doable. . However, no guarantee of CFHA commit-
ment at this time. Flory did indicate that
they have legal opinion from CFHA validating
concept. Flory asking Lyon Company to send fi-
nancial statement .
5. RING BROTHERS
Contact: J.B. Saunders , Vice President/Controller
(213) 39377276
Information Requested : More detailed financial data, parking.
Response: Will provide cost breakdowns and operating pro-
formas as well as clarification of the parking
situation.
cc: Robert Snow, Jr.
I} a. Name-
b. Firm(s) Michael Hall
Bisel- August
Warmington
C . # units- 150 units
d'. # submittals- 2 narratives w/plans
2) a. Name- "Heritage Park"
b. Firm (s) - Cal-Mark
C. # units- 148
d. # submittals- 2 boards - 2 sets of plans - 2 narratives
3) a. Name-
b. Firm (s) - EDAW
Klein
Levitt Turner
C. # units- 156
d.- # submittals- 2 narratives w/plans - 1 colored site plan -
1 rendering (board) - 2 narratives
4) a. Name- Q�L.Ft k�ST / P_ K.v MA3V
b. Firm (s) - "Palm Terrace"
C. # units- 135 '
d. # submittals- 2 plans - 2 narratives - 7 boards
5) a . Name-
b. Firm (s) - KCV
Housing Concepts
Lyon Co .
C. # units- 156
d. # submittals- 2 narratives - 2 sets of plans
6) a. Name-
b. Firm (s) - Mayer
C . # units- 174
# submittals- 2 narratives - 1 set colored plans - 2 sets
non-colored plans
7) a. Name- Huntington Towers
b. Firm (s) - Griffen and Krebbs
National Housing
C. # units- 208
d. # submittals- 2 sets of plans
8) a. Name- Beach Terrance Apartments
b. Firm (s) - Martin Drovzky
National Housing
C. # units- 209
d. # submittals- 1 board - 2 narratives - 2 reduced plans
9) a. Name-
b. Firm(s) - R.H. Klein Co.
C. # units- 159
d. # submittals- 2 sets of plans - 2 narratives
10) a. Name-
b. Firm (s) - Ring Bros .
Vito Cetti
c. # units- 179
d. # submittals- 2 sets of. plans
11) a. Name- "Huntington Gardens"
b. Firm (s) - Shapell, Inc .
C . # units- 136
d. # submittals- 2 narratives - 2 sets of plans
12) a. Name-
b. Firm (s) - Toman Company
C. # units- 185
d. # submittals- 2 narratives w/plans
13) a. Name-
b. Firm (s) - R.L. Simpson
Louell Lusk
[watt Industries
C. # units- 148
d. # submittals- 2 narratives - 2 sets of plans
VEA
vito cetta, a.i.a. and associates . architecture and planning • a professional corporation
2665 thirtieth street, suite 215 • santa monica, callfornla 90405 (213) 450-5022
randy washington associate
david goldstien project architect
glen m.jackson project manager
December 13, 1978
Mr. Steve Kohler
City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Housing for the Elderly
Dear Steve:
We are working feverishly to finalize design for Ring Brothers. By now you have
become aware that Ring Brothers is entering the competition.
Ring Brothers has received many awards for apartment projects they have developed and
are considered by knowledgeable experts in the business, as the finest apartment
developer in the country. We are again proud to be part of their team.
Please keep Gary Thompson of Ring Brothers (393-7276) and myself aware of any
additional information issued on this project.
Sincerely,
Vito Cetta
cc: Gary Thompson
Ia
• CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH
®� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
:_, • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271
December 12, 1978
Mr. John 0. Cotton
. .Kamnitzer Cotton, Vreeland
9601. Wilshire Boulevard, Mezzanine Suite 100
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Subject: Preliminary Proposal: Senior Citizen Complex at
Old Civic Center
Dear Mr. Cotton:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this date
stating that your proposal will not be rejected if it does
not strictly conform to the program design and parking require-
ments for the Senior Citizens Recreation Center component.
However, we do ask that you include a narrative explanation
of the reasons why it was not possible, in your opinion, to
strictly conform to these requirements .
If you should have any additional questions regarding this
project, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward
to your submission on December 22, 1978 .
Very truly yours,
Steph n K ler
Senior Com nity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
�I
rauas deuelmco Incl-
leshe ent
19842 HART ST.,;CANOGA. PARK CALIFORNIA, 91306- 340-6332
December 6, 1978.•
:..Mr. Steven -W. Kohler
Senior Community Development' Speciali•st
Department of Planning &, Invironmental Resources
City of Huntington Beach
PO Box 190'
Huntington Beach - CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler
With =reference: to. your letter dated' November. 29, 1978 re-
garding" the Senior Citizen Housing Complex to be construe-
ted on the. old Siuic Center Site_, the Leslie Graves Devel-
opment '-Company will not be able to . submit 'a proposal for
said development- under your existing terms and conditions.
We find your maximum allowable rents are not economically
.- ,feasible and that the development fees to 'be charged by
the city are excessive .
We thank you for the opportunity to .participate but res
' pectfully decline. on this- project..
Sincerely,-
Patt-
Vice President
LKP:b
GOLDRICH, KEST & ASSOCIATES
BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
PARTNERS 816 UNION BANK PLAZA
JONA OOLDRICH 15233 VENTURA BOULEVARD
SOL KEST SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403
ROBERT HIRSCH 981-8233 -872-1741
ROBERT 1. STERN
November 28, 1978
Mr.- Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning $ Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: Request for Proposal
Senior Citizen Housing, Old City Hall Site
Dear Mr. Kohler:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of today wherein I
indicated to you our intention to submit a proposal for the captioned site.
Very truly yours,
GOLDRICH, KEST & ASSOCIATES ,
Ll
Ja'nAuelG. 1Afterg2ut
Director of Development
Southern California
EGA/lp
Calmark
Prope,
la(service
163326th Street
P.O.Box 2128
Calmark Santa Monica,Ca.90406
Properties,Inc. Telephone 213 829 7453
November 20, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P.O. BOX 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: NOVEMBER 2 , 1978
HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
Dear Steve:
I wish to inform you that Calmark Properties, Inc. will be sub-
mitting a proposal on the above referenced request for proposals
to construct senior citizen housing in the city of Huntington
Beach.
I will be calling you approximately November 28 , 1978 to re-
schedule our meeting.
I look forward to the possibility of constructing senior citizen
housing in Huntington Beach.
Sincerely,
CALMARK PROPERTIES, INC.
John M. Huskey
`Project Manager
JMH:kp
INCORPORATED
13400 Riverside Drive
Suite 9.03
( 13) 995-1957 (213) 872-0108
2
Sherman Oaks,California 91423
November 20, 1978
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P. 0. Box 190.
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attn: Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
Subject REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS;
SENIOR CITIZEN'S HOUSING
Dear Mr. Kohler:
This letter is to express our interest in and intentions to
submit to the City of Huntington Beach a proposal in response
to your Request for Proposals dated October 10, 1978.
National Housing Consultants, Inc. , has considerable experience
in the design, development and management of housing for
elderly citizens and look forward to a possible opportunity of
working with you and the_.City of Huntington Beach in meeting
the needs of some of the senior citizens of your community.
We would appreciate receiving any additional information or
data which might be helpful to us as we assemble our proposal
for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
NATIONAL HOUSING CONSULTANTS, INC.
3��
R PETERS
P
CLP/NHC/svp
Ma r Government Housing Inc.
Y 9
8121 East Florence Avenue
Downey, California 90240
(213)927-3341
November 17, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development
Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and
Environmental Resources
Post Office Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
As per your memorandum dated November 2, 1978, requesting proposals for
senior citizen housing, we would consider it an honor to submit a pro-
posal on December 22.
In addition, we would look forward to working with both you and the City
of Huntington Beach.
Sincerely,
Rob 6' n
Lui y
DiviManager
RJL: lcg
VCqA
vito cetta,.a.i.a. and associates • architecture and planning • a professional corporation
2665 thirtieth street, suite 215 • santa monica, california 90405 (213) 450-5022
randy washington associate
david goldstien project architect
glen m.jackson project manager
November 9, 1978
Mr. Steve Kohler
City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Housing for the Elderly
Dear Steve:
This letter is written pursuant to our recent telephone conversation.
We are the architects-planners for the development team of Long Asset
Management and Anden Corporation. We are in the process of preparing
site plan studies which we would like to review with you early next week.
Please keep us informed on any additional information that is prepared
for this project.
SincerelV�t
Vito Cetta
cc: John Long
Gene Rosenfeld
o�O
ry
0'a`V a
i° o, Q
��ccc��
^ S' a �Jo oc a
V c c
L _ �b �Jy L0 °
November 7, 1978
Stephen Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Stephen:
Per your request, this is to confirm our intent on
behalf of Watt Industries to submit a proposal in response
to the City of Huntington Beach' s request for proposals for
Senior Citizen Housing.
On behalf of our client, Watt Industries, R. L. Simpson
& Associates will continue working with the City in an
effort to address your housing needs and will greatly
appreciate any future correspondence regarding this
project or other related housing projects within your
city.
Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to
working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara S. Grimm
LONG ASSET MANAGEMENT
■ COMPANY, INC.
November 3, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P. G. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Pursuant to your request, this is to indicate to you and your
department that we are very enthusiastic about your request
for proposal for the construction of Senior Citizen Housing
and a Senior Citizen Center on city-owned property.
We expect to be submitting a proposal and therefore request
that you provide us with any information regarding this proposal
by sending it to me as it becomes available.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
John S. Long
President
JSL:lg
3330 PICO BOULEVARD SUITE A SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 (213) 450-4447
the r. h. k1ein company OEUE
1910 sunset boulevard suite 355 los angeles california 90026 tel 213-483 6613
November 2, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
Department of Planning & Environmental Resources
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: Senior Citizen Housing
Dear Mr. Kohler:
The R. 11. Klein Company intends to submit a proposal for the
Senior Citizen Housing and Center project.
It is our understanding that the proposal is due on or before
Friday, December 22, 1978, at 12:00 noon. Further, it is our
understanding that equal w&ight will be given to the physical
(structures, functional usage, & aesthetics) and to the economics.
In addition, please enter our firms name on your mailing list
for distribution of information on your anticipated "235,--.Scattered-
site" RFP.
Very truly yours,
THE R. EIN COMPANY
Reinhold H. Klei
PRUDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
265 SOUTH ROBERTSON BOULEVARD BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 (213) 652.6677
November 1, 1978
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P.0 Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention of Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
Dear Sirs:
We are interested in submitting a proposal for your contemplated
Senior Citizen Housing. We should appreciate remaining on your
mailing and being kept advised as to any further information
which might be forthcoming. We are especially interested in
being informed when you have received more definite notice
of final authority to have Section 8 certificates issued,
And any conditions affecting same.
Most cordially yours,
PRUDEN UCTION CO.
By
H r S oler
hls/ms
The Toman Company
October 30, 1978
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and
Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn: Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Dear Mr. Kohler,
We attended your meeting of October 31th, regarding Senior Citizen Housing
in Huntington Beach.
We are planning to submit a proposal for the project and will appreciate
it if you will place our name on your mailing list, for additional or
updated information.
Xen
an
President
WT:km
18002 Skypark Circle,Irvine,California 92714, Telephone (714) 549-8466
OWEN MENARD
_ & ASSOCIATES
454 West Baseline Road
_- Claremont, California 91711
714/621-4921
i
December 19, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning & Environmental Resources
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Thank you very much for the Senior Citizen Housing infor-
mation you sent us. We have, however, decided not to sub-
mit a proposal on this project.
Happy Holidays .
Best regards,
;enM0enard,
N, MENARD & ASSOCIATES
Chairman of the Board
OM: js
URBAN & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
--- --
-
� 'r
,. aw kv"Mow aim..oct.2z un—Pnt Yf 18
ATTENTION DREWPERS
THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON
BEACH
Is seeking proposals for the
construction of a Senior Citi-
zens Housing and Senior Acti-
vity Center complex to be
constructed on City owned
property.
The City will provide Com-
munity Development Block
Grant Funds to clear and pro
vide off-site improvements to
the 3.64_ acre site, and will
lease the site. to the developer
selected at a nominal fee.
Interested parties may contact
the City of Huntington Beach
for further details-'and a re-
quest for proposal packet at
714 536-5541
Peter Walker —chard Law Donald Tompkins V' "Bemis Thomas Adams
Kalvin Platt liam Callaway James Reeves m Clarke Gerry Campbell
Edmond Kagi .rendy Simon George Kurilko L,-,.ny Powell P.Michael Gilbert
James Culver
the swa group
October 17, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
We are in receipt of your invitation to submit a proposal for
Senior Citizen Housing on city-owned property in Huntington Beach.
and we thank you for your consideration by inviting us to participate.
Because our expertise lies in the area of planning and landscape
architecture we feel you would be better served if we declined.
However, we would like to be considered if at some later time
you have a requirement where you feel you could utilize our
services.
j
Lerel
k for ar to hearing from you again.
9. ompkins
Donald
Principal
DHT:ah
2192 Martin—Suite 155 Offices in: Site Planning Resources&Regional Planning
Irvine,California 92715 Sausalito Landscape Architecture Developmental Planning
714-833-3973 Irvine Urban Design Park&Recreational Programming
Houston Environmental Impact Studies Site Engineering
Boston Applied Natural Sciences Audio-Visual Presentations
HMN ®EVCORP
A W�dN 1..K+eo 5—d--cF E�-w%h—Inc
October 17 , 1978
Mr . Stephen V . Kohler
Sr . Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Planning and
Environmental Resources
P . 0 . Box 190
Huntington Beach , California 92648
Re : Senior Citizen Housing
Huntington Beach , CA
Dear Mr. Kohler :
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 10 , 1978 re
proposals for Senior Citizen Housing in the cityof Huntington
Beach .
We appreciate your considering Hahn Devcorp ; however , at this
time , Hahn Devcorp is only seeking commercial properties for
development .
Again , thank you for considering Hahn Devcorp .
Very truly yours ,
HAHN DEVCORP
Stanley W. Gribble
President
SWG : sa
Encl .
200 Continental Blvd., El Segundo, California 90245, Phone: (213) 772-4200 O
n
•
_ com►cr�,1 ' ' = -ter � �►'�� -_ -=—=-- __.
., - ,.'4_aK_rJ'�.��ir_r�1�:•:: �Sc:�.�:. co►ry.r�r�;1 �1.►:,r_,r.:..�cSZ._�._�.o►nv 2Y�_�,h ut.:
C-D?SO = Pa CIO` 6 - .,�COc�r1r�
11 ,
Ay—
•
•
c.A O
. VG
�•eh :U:�o fix..._ _.�t.�s"� error__.__ ��•�st._ :r �'.._ir_Y�:.r.��.a.��SLi��S�S�'�-
f- ' --'N��ii. c�R-�.C���11z . .la•I to•�$
Ste#vas_ _ - s��k'�.r �- • dl swe_ -ov-1_
I
WILLIAM L. PEREIM . OCIATES - PLANNERS I HITECTS - ENGINEERS
October 12, 1978
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California
Subject: Request for Proposals; Senior Citizen Housing
Dear Mr. Kohler:
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 10, 1978
regarding the construction of a Senior Citizen Center and
Senior Citizen Housing. We regret that we are unable to
respond at this time because of project load.
Thank you for considering William L. Pereira Associates.
We hope you will contact us for future proposals.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Canedy, AIA
Vice President
CWC:el
URBANUS SQUARE,MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AT FORD ROAD, P. O. BOX 186, CORONA DEL MAR,CALIFORNIA 92625 • 714/644-0620
• CITY OF HUnT. inGTon BEACH
J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271
October 10, 1978
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals; Senior Citizen Housing
Gentlemen:
The City of Huntington Beach is seeking proposals for the construction
of Senior Citizen Housing and a Senior Citizen Center on City-owned
property. Enclosed for your review please find a Request for Proposal`s
which details the anticipated project and the necessary proposal contents .
The City will use Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds to
improve the 3. 64 acre site and will lease it to the developer selected
by the City Council.
If your firm is interested in submitting a proposal, please plan to
attend one of the meetings we have scheduled to discuss this project.
1 . Monday, October 16 , 1978
2 : 00 P.M.
Room B-7 , Lower Level
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2 . Wednesday, October 18 , 1978
10: 00 A.M.
B-8, Lower Level
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach
Please contact us to confirm your attendance at one of these meetings at
(714) 536-5541.
The deadline for submitting proposals is November 17, 1978 at 4 : 00 P.M.
The City is also seeking developers who own or control sites within the
City and who would be willing to participate with the City in a plan to
provide mortgage assisted housing for low- and moderate income househd'lds .
You may also express your interest in this project at one of the above
meetings or by phoning the above number.
If you should have any questions regarding either of these projects , please
do not hesitate to phone me. I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours ,
�/_lei�
Steph Ko er
Senior Comm ity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
Encl.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
0
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
This is a request for proposals for conceptual architectural drawings
and financial feasibility statements for the construction and operation
" of a senior citizens housing development, full-service senior citizens
center, an exterior improvement and .re-landscaping of the existing or pro-
vision of new branch library, and limited service commercial on the Old.
Civic Center Site in downtown Huntington Beach. The details of each of
these elements of-. the proposal are described below, along with a budget.
for site improvements.
The goal of this proposal is to combine the City' s Housing and Community.
Development, General Fund , and Section 8 Housing Assistance resources
with those of private enterprise to provide a comprehensive housing,
recreation, social and cultural center for senior citizens . To accomplish
this 5ual the City of Huntington Beach will:
1. Demolish existing buildings on site $60, 000
(except library)
2. Fully improve the site for construction $40 , 000
3 . Provide funds for-
a. Construction of senior citizens center $305 , 000
b. Construction of new library or improvements
to existing facility $100 , 000
$405 , 000
4 . Lease site to selected developer:
a. Lease terms $1. 00 per year
b. Estimated value of site: $906 , 000
In return, the selected developer will be obligated to do the following :
1. Design, finance, and construct approximately 200-300 one and two bedroom
senior citizen apartments on the site.
2 . Maintain and manage these units .
3. Reserve a percentage of these units (20-50 percent depending on the
total number of units built) for certificate holders in the Section 8
Leased Iiousina Assistance Program.
4. Design and construct with HCD funds , a Senior Center to be turned
over to the City upon completion.
1
Q
T ,
5 . Design and construct with City funds improvements to the existing
library which shall continue to be managed and maintained by the
City ; or :
1rhe developer' s option, a new, comparable library facility may be
provided but in no case will the City ' s contribution exceed .
$100 , 000 , and the developer will be responsible for the cost of
demolition of the existing library . This option is offered to
provide the developer with the opportunity to more fully integrate
library facilities in the development and offer greater flexibility
on site design.
6 . (Option) Design, finance , construct , and manage small scale
service commercial area on the site .
2
1 f
THE STTE
LOCATION : Between Sixth and Main Streets and Acacia and Orange
Streets in downtown Huntington Beach (see map attached) .
USE: The site , formerly used as the City' s Civic Center, con-
tains five municipal buildings and a number of temporary
structures . The site includes a portion of the Pecan
Street right-of-way, which is presently used for on-
site parking.
SIZE: Approximatel.y 3. 64 gross acres
ZONING: CF-C (Community facilities - Civic Center Uses) This
zoning will revert to R3 & C3 upon .discontinuance of
civic center use.
GENERAL PLAN: Planning Reserve (excluding Pecan St. right-of-way) .
UTILITIES : All major utilities are available to the site.
SERVICES: The Senior Citizens Recreation Center provides
recreational and social services for approximately
4000 seniors a month, and is currently located 2/3
miles from the project site , and will be relocated to
the old civic center as part of this proposal.
The beach and municipal pier are located approximately
four blocks from the site .
Bus service by Orange County Transit District is
available at the site.
The City Gym with pool and exercise equipment is
nine blocks from the site .
Major medical facilities are 2 miles from the site .
Some shopping facilities and major banking institutions
, are available in the downtown area, however, major
shopping would require travel of approximately one mile.
3
THE PROJECT
No building configuration is sc:)ccified , however, the following design
considerations must be followed :
A, . . Senior Citizen Housing
Project: The proposal calls for the construction of approximately
200-300 apartments for senior citizens in one or more buildings.
Most of these units should be one bedroom but some two-bedroom units_
shall be provided for disabled and handicapped with live-in attendants.
The facility shall also include a full range of communal facilities .
(except eating) and shall be designed to provide for handicapped
accessibility to all facilities.
The project' should be oriented to maximize natural light
and ventilation in each unit and to maximize view potential .
Movement to, from and within the project should be convenient.
Each unit. should have a private outdoor space.
Indoor and outdoor common areas should be provided.
Provision of common use amenities such as security systems ,
medical. alarms, exercise facilities , gardening or outdoor
recreation facilities will enhance a proposal .
Project proposal should make use of the numerous specimen
size palms which presently exist on the site .
Funding : The construction and long-term financing of these units
would be the responsibility of the developer. In ' return for the
lease of the property at a minimal cost the developer would agree
to reserve a share of these units (approximately 20-50 percent)
for certificate holders in the Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Program. The Housing Authority would have responsibility for ad-
ministering the subsidy payments. A provision of the lease agree-
ment would require that Section 8 units rent for no more than the
federally established Fair Market Rents for the Leased. Housing
Assistance Program (1 bedroom $220/mo, ; 2 bedroom $240/mo. ) & developers
are encouraged to submit rents below this level.
B. Senior Citizens Recreation Center
Project: To provide a full service senior citizens center (of
approximately 10, 000 sq. ft. ) to house the activities of the
current center at 17th and Orange plus the Transportation-Lunch-
Counseling Program.
Senior Citizen Center would include meeting rooms , offices , a
kitchen, and outdoor and indoor recreation facilities .
Funding: To construct this center, HCD Funds programmed for im-
provements to the existing center should be reprogrammed to this
site and a portion of the funds programmed for site acquisition
for senior housing will also be reallocated (see attached Budget) .
4
C. Library Improvements
Pr.o.ject: Provide an exterior " .face lift" and relandscaping of
(-.l-ie existing library directed towards creating a uniform archi-
tectural treatment for the entire project, or, at the developer' s
option, provide a new comparable facility. The City ' s contri-
bution to this please of development shall not exceed $100, 000
and if a new facility is proposed, the developer would be responsi-
ble for the demolition of the existing library structure.
Funding: City funds would be required for this project (see Budget) .
D. Commercial Space
Project: At the option of the developer, limited commercial lease
space may also be integrated into the proposal. design. The con-.
struction of this optional facility would be the responsibility
of the developer and the developer or management agent will have
responsibility_ for the leasing and management of the commercial
space.
Funding: The developer would be responsible for the financing of
this project and revenues from it may be used to underwrite the
costs of the- Senior Housing Project.
E. Option: The City will also receive proposals for the use of only
a portion of the site and these proposals may contain any or all of
the components described above. The submission of a proposal for
use' of only a share of the site is at the option of the developer
and developers are encouraged to submit more than one proposal.
5
PROPOSAL CONTENTS
All proposals should be "design/build" proposals; that is each proposal
should represent a physically sound and economically feasible project.
Each proposal should contain at minimum:
1. Preliminary Design
a. illustrative plot plan (showing building location, recreational
facilities , landscaping, walkways , parking)
b. 'elevations (rendering optional.)
C. floor plan•of typical housing units , senior center and com-
mercial space, if any.
2 . Preliminary Financial_ Statement
a. A "Pro Forma". financial statement must accompany each proposal.
This shall include building and other improvement costs, projected
revenues; and must document the necessity of the City' s financial
contribution for the production and rental of the housing units .
b. A maintenance and management plan for each element of the proposal
and the attendant costs must be included.
C. A statement of the credentials of the developer including , previous
experience with similar projects and a financial status statement
must also be included.
F
OLD CIVIC CENTER
REVISED HOUSING PROPOSAL
BUDGET
Cost Source
A. SITE PREPARATION
1. Demolition & Clearance of $ 60,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Memorial Hall, Fire Sta-
tion, Administration
Building, and Community
Clinic
2. Water and Sewer Improve- 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
ments
3. Grading and Landscape 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Alterations
Total Site Improvements $150,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
B. NEW SENIOR CENTER
1. Construction of New $150,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Facility 155,000 HCD Reprogram from
existing center
Total Center Costs $305,006
C. LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Building Alterations i $1000000 City Funds .
Landscape Improvements
2. Or Contribution of 'New (1001000) City Funds
Library
Total Library Costs $100,000 City Funds
Subtotal (405,000) HCD Funds
Subtotal (100,000) City Funds
GRAND TOTAL $505,600
5 t
27
civic ti
'A,6/ .
�/ 1
PECAN .. I STRUT 1
240'
'IPA
W
t H
center
N W6
75' 240' 80' 75'. ..
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
huntington beach planning department
note: all pakns are 30r'cliainn.
30'to 35' in height@
22cli
���LLL�LJJJJ !9 pti
W
• W 51• se
a
y eS�
19
If-22-� 8 block wall
FIRE STATION
� sz• °'
K • -37'
� 1 story frame 2 storyaDntrete
z1-0
5 • �
® 29
21'
f"
W
PECAN AVENUE \ W
oc
a.c. parking area._ H
t OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE : NORTH
t
PECAN AVENUE
�-- a. c. parking area
® �25
1 2
85 c
MEMORIAL HALL
2 story masonary/stucco
10 24-.® 85
5,
w
Z
W W
Q 31 temporor 0.25 W
Q
31 trailers
H
x
an grass area u
U.
50
CLINIC
4 /�
' 1 story/temp. (,��J)
26
27 2B 27
ORANGE AVENUE
OLD CIVIC
' C CENTER SITE SOUTH
l pdrNNNI NINE
iIIN N q lull NNMIN INIIN N
I� lIIINMIII 1 IIYN ,�qll N�Ilq�lil��� �1
• : III III l_. ] m
"on-P-m-
r 7i�giuldl
!
. WISHMUR %10
will q
IN 0 NOW
poulmobli(i NOR
I MINIMUM IMURNPOINNUKUHN
IYY ail nYY IINAIY� INNYHAN HNNYIIt�
qrA NII� fl ANNN aaliMllgr
wY IYYYIIYY MCI ! Yr rYHYltlltl Iltttrmmt
• IAa ��I HarAi INAI II!# AIII�flNa aaANNN;i
AYI HtllYlrir fll'IrIHIIH N�rYIYI YIYII� gNYYlllfl
� illy MINA INIIII�1 CINHAfl1A IIaflAAMp aIANNAtI
I 0 1I NNN HHYYIINH IIIIIIaHIIH. rllt iliNr III�I�
UiN aralallN aIAYAI Ill. 111r m
MII NINlYpIN NIINIIIIIY 1111111 1111�! 11�11
a Aarrara rlllllalA �AINIII 1 III/1 I�IIBIYI �
1Na aaat�nfl rumrldtl ' Iilall INmImIfN �I
IdN lowAllllm A I0NIINI NaomiIiIA
ill�HNIIYII!lH I�AlA IAIIAIINA Al1AAN1 �
f ��N' N � Al MBflgIIR1 I+ aIAI 919N1� qr'�
�j NBC NII NI �IdlIIAN l�IIIN�
data rll wilttal 1 1 I Nlfll flw iial11Y1 AiilliwNN
gNINpINII INNN NNNl1l1 1lIIIIIAI
lH Ifll I AlflAll II�Iag11 gAll�lfla Ag1�lINr
� 11�1 mr .,gl1lINN AAIItINI gpflltl4t� . r
rpbi Irlltllgr tlNll I IIIfN IN 111�Ir AIIl�II1M)
(; IAlll AA�YU�p 1 Id�! HAIIIIAII pr '� �' -
Iarfll on
Hpll �IgAIInn
� ®IYI{fl11 HIII�BIS I �►
?IA111 IgftlNNdr Ndl logo' ,
Ia Ilal 11 �'
IYN�Im a�Ylr i
16 r�IIHNI YII • !N''�
.all r I Ilr
I( II WA III
Si AY�WAI IIw II
M I
i
L��-TINIIYIIIIItI !IIIIN111N1
MU Ndlllll InlnllmN 1 IINII unNpNNd iNINNIrI.�
IIII NH61N111111 allnNllllp hgtlNNall nINNNIINI lNl�l�
� till NNIINIiiln gNifN1111N "d1NA1NAl lUIlU1IU 1NNM1®
�° ?�� aligH+llllil. allllllllN ''IIINIlallnlllNl Regal-
poll lllivttlin onoillIN gNnamil Ili11IW A r"UNI lli
Wd NIIIIAiINA NIIAIt�I dNNNNNI 1dU�d N1gN1NN
!PN niHdillaa 11WNNNP '>n�NNa aiINIPIIIN pill NIN
• Nifi "Mnllta nlluouii + A IAI�N1dIlINN INtAgA1q�
a= INN NIIIWgtIH IIIIlaNf� NNN�INu IINIINIIIIa
INn IUIt1fltIllltrNNllNalfn lnIIiNUNN Illlllgntlll
�` lull �IIWIINII aaNNlNl11 !NHIINMNfllinilllq�illHllNH
NdIlINg1 qin UdN "dNuAnNN IIlNR NIN IIININIIII
Pip gn�Inuu NUN�H1di gl1p npnPNna:glluitntNi
• m 'gin NIWI�in iiN1NNWI ilnA�lm pIIItNNllll` ININNNf!!i
PIN INIn ".t11NNIIlI "tldaNpp (IN"HNINt pi!li�gtlll
Illu �p�IAN)NIIIIIIIIUN �1HIIIIItIIN111111NI1Nl!/annNN111 •
lull INiWIIINIItugwjtlNN Nllaallll!ll7Nll!;iilllgl�d11II11 .INNS,
Illn p1pANllN NIa�NNIN NIliNllNtl�ilNllllilld`��11lIlY IN
wNIN pIHdl flumlll!' 111�111 lIIIIIII�UIIIIr�'IN"
O Nln ullaRllnq UIIIIIIUNh +9111111 1111111 IIIIIlI IIIIb
i IHN NNgNAnn uu�p,;�N _1 Ilillit NIIItiItHl IIIt>I
IdN fl�llll�' N"iWUIIN 1 Illidllonion alb,
Mr I
(lNNIN,.Ngllllll!iN Illglll_ NIN NNI 11111 11r1Nr11 np1',
�l1N flN;III�U 1 AIM NIIIIIII IMIIINIf 111IIIM IMF''
IDS wtill�Nl M11III11 1111111 Inll N IIl1�11�1IllNlw
dHiN � �IIMIpA IINIIIIRN ggq�illl�NlNNI `.
ON gii uiuilib gi 111 (1I4ii NO
' � pile �illlll IldMlplll �l all Ndnaldl Ilillll
IM111111111111111 IIIIMN N1I 1N 111I111 NlrlirlNi
NNII� lllllll NNAIN will Nll lNNigipI lllElilllN
= � 11111 1IWI61>I Ill qH 0111111 11Ig1111W1 PI, 1,001t,
►!hIM WlllNll�llpl9�{� {�ill�tiw dbdtlhdU����•�����♦
III IIIMd ,'1 OF 4
If11111 NANNNNN 1111111NNI Mill'
11 N tI�IWWIIIOM= allrl► i
1MI IN1111lgM IIIa1w
A I Ii till
I II NIon win
N N�lIIIYIII IIINp''
.MIININIWIN! 1p,
i
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RI;nU1',:S'P POR PIlOPOSAT,S
SENIOR CITI%C:N HOUSING
.This is a request for proposals for conceptual architectural drawings
and financial feasibility statements for the: construction and.. operation
of a seni"or" citizens housing' developmc:nt, . Eul1-service senior citizens
center, an exterior improvement and re-landscaping of the existing or pro-
vislon of new brangh library, and. l.imlted service commercial on- the Old
Civa.c Center Site in downtown Huntington Beach. The details of each of
these elements of the proposal are described below, along. with a budget
for site improvements.
The goal -of this proposal is to combine the City' s Housing and Community
-Development, General Fund , and Section 8 Housing Assistance resources
with those of private enterprise to provide a comprehensive housing,
recreation, social and cultural center for senior citizens. To accomplish
this coal the City of Huntington Beach will:
1. Demolish existing buildings on site $60, 000
(except library)
2. Fully improve the site for construction $40,000
3 . -. Provide funds for:
a. Construction of senior citizens center $305, 000
b. Construction of new library or improvements
to existing facility $100 00.0
$405, 000
4. Leasc: site to selected developer:
a. Lease terms $1.00 per year
b. Estimated value of site: $906-,000
In return, the selected developer will be obligated to do the following :
1. Design, finance, and construct approximately 200-300 one and two bedroom
senior citizen. apartments on the site.
2. Maintain and man&ge these units.
3. - Reserve a percentage of these units (20-50 percent depending on the
total number of units built.) for certificate holders in the Section. 8
Leased Housing Assistance Program.
4. Design and construct with HCD funds, a Senior Center. to be turned
over to the City upon completion.
1 .
5. Desi.yn and construct with City funds improvements- to the existing
l.i.b ary whi.clh shall continue to be managed and maintained by the
City ; or :
The developer' s option, a new, comparable library .facility may Abe,
provided but in no case will the City' s contribution , exceed
$100 , 000 , and the developer will be responsible for the- cost, of
demolition of the existing library . This option is offered to
provide the developer wth 'the opportunity to more fully integrate
. .library facilities in the. development and offer greate'r- flexibility
on site design.
6 . (Option) Design, finance , construct , and manage small 'scale
service commercial area on the site .
2
THE ST IT,'
LOCl1nON : IioL-..wvon Sixth and Main SL•.rnuLs and Agoci.a and Orange
Streets in downtown Huntington Baach ' (aea map attached) .
• USE: The site, formerly used as the City' s Civic -Center, con-
twins five municipal buildings and a number of temporary
structures . The site .includes .a portion of. the Pecan
Street right-of-way, which is presently,;used •,:for .on-
site parking.
SIZE: Approximately 3.64 gross acres
.ZONING:s CF-C. (Community facilities - Civic Center Uses) This
zoning will revert to R3 & C3 upon discontinuance of
civic center use.
GENERAL PLAN: Planning Reserve (excluding Pecan St. right-of-way) .
UTILITIES: All major utilities are available to the site.
SERVICES: The Senior. Citizens Recreation Center. provides
recreational and' social :services for:. approximately
4000 seniors a month, and is. 'currentlyl.ocated 2/3
fniles" ftom the project site, and will -be relocated to
the old . civic center as part of this proposal.
The beach and municipal pier are located approximately
four blocks from the site .
Bus service by Orange ,County Transit'.D s.trict, is .. .
available at the site. -.
` _. The City Gym with pool and exercise equipment is . .
nine blocks from the ,site.
Major medical facilities .are 2 miles from the site.
Some ,shopping facilities,and major banking institutions.
• are available in the downtown area, j
_however,.. mar
.o
.:
shopping would require travel of approx-imately one mile.
3
THE PROJECT
No building configuration is specified, however, the following design..
considerations must be followed:
A,. Senior Citizen Iiousing
Protect: The proposal calls for the construction of approximately .
20.0-300 apartments for senior citizens in one or more. buildings.
Most of these units should be one bedroom but some two-bedroom units
shall be provided for disabled and handicapped with live-in attendants-.
. The facility shall also include a full range of: communal facilities .
(except eating) and shall be designed to provide for. handicapped
accessibility to all facilities.
The project' should be oriented to maximize natural light
and 'ventilati-on in each unit and to maximize view potential. '
Movement to, from and within the project should. be convenient-.
Each unit should have a private outdoor space.
Indoor and outdoor common areas should be provided.
Provision of common use amenities such as security systems,
medical.' alarms, exercise facilities, ' gardening or outdoor
recreation facilities will enhance a proposal.
Project proposal should make use of " the numerous specimen
size -palms which presently exist on the site .
Funding: The construction and long-term financing of these units
would be the responsibility of the developer. . In - return for the
lease of -the property at a minimal cost the. developer would agree '
to reserve a share of these units (approximately 20-50 percent)
for certificate .holders in the Section 8 ..Leased Housing-Assistance
Program. --The Housing Authority would have responsibility for ad-
ministering the subsidy payments. A provision of the lease .agree
ment would require that Section 8 units rent for no more tharn the
federally ,establislied Fair Market Rents for the Leased Housing
Assistance Program (1 bedroom $220/mo, ; 2 bedroom $240/mo. ) & developers
..are encouraged to submit rents below this level.
B. Senior Citizens Recreatioh-7Center
Project: To provide a full service senior citizens center .(of
7anprox1r'mately .10, 000 sq.. ft. ) to house the activities of the
current center , at 17th and Orange plus the Transportation-Lunch-
Counseling Program.
Senior Citizen . Center would include meeting rooms, offices, a
kitchen, and outdoor and indoor recreation facilities.
Funding: To construct this center, 11CD Funds programmed for im-
provements to the existing center should be reprogrammed to this
site and a portion of the funds programmed for site acquisition
for senior housing will also be reallocated (see attached , ' udget) .
4
C. Library Improvements .
C>roicct: Provide, an :exterior "face lift" and relandscaping 'of
�tlic existing. lAbrary directed towards creati.-ng a uniform: atchi-
tectural treatment for the entire project ,' or, at the developeV s
option, provide a new comp,-;irable facility. The City ' s conLri-
bution to this please of development: shall not exceed $100,'000'
and if a new facility is proposed, the developer would,be" responsi
ble: for the demolition of the existing library structure:: -' _
Funding: City funds would be required for this project (see Budget) .
D. Commercial Space
Project: At the option of the developer, ' limited commercial "lease
space may also be integrated into the proposal. design. The con—
struction of this optional facility would be the responsibility
of the developer and the developer or management agent will have
... ..responsibility -for the leasing and management of the commercial
space.
rundipq: The developer would be responsible for the financing of
this project and revenues from it may be used to underwrite the
costs of '.the - Senior Housing Project.
E. Option : The City will also receive proposals for the use of only
. a ..por. t-ion. of the site and these proposals may contain any or all of
. thc� .components. described above. The submission . of a proposal for
use of only a share of the site is at the""option of the developer
and developers are encouraged to submit more than one proposal.
5
PROPOSAL CONTENTS
All proposals should be "design/build" proposals; that is- each proposal
should represent a Physically sound and economically fe'as.i.bl.e project.
Each proposal should contain `at 'minimum:
1. Preliminary Design
a. illustrative plot plan (showing building location, recreational
facilities, landscaping, walkways , parking)
b. elevations (rendering optional)
C. floor plan-of typical housing units , senior center and com-
mercial space, if any.
Z. Preliminary Financial Statement
a. A "Pro Forma".. financial statement must accompany each proposal.
This shall include building and other improvement costs, projected
revenues; and must document the necessity .o,f the City' s financial
contribution for the production and rental of the housing units .
b.' A maintenance and management plan for each element of the proposal
and the attendant costs must be included.
c. A statement of the credentials of the developer including, previous
experience with similar projects and a financial status statement
must also be includcO..
F
OLD CIVIC CENTER
REVISED HOUSING PROPOSAL
BUDGET
Cost Source
A. SITE PREPARATION
1. Demolition & Clearance of $ 60,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Memorial Hall, Fire Sta-
tion, Administration
Building, and Community
Clinic
2. Water and Sewer Improve- 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
ments
3. Grading and Landscape 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Alterations
Total Site Improvements $100,006 HCD Senior Housing Site
B. NEW SENIOR CENTER
1. Construction of New $150 ,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Facility 155,000 HCD Reprogram from
existing center
Total Center Costs $305,006
C. LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Building Alterations i $1001000 City Funds
Landscape Improvements
2. Or Contribution of New (100,000) City Funds
Library
Total Library Costs $100,000 City Funds
Subtotal (405,000) HCD Funds
Subtotal (100,000) City Funds
GRAND TOTAL $505,000
27
QAW
b
A civic ti
.ter
PECAN i STREET
240r
W W
ad
ty
center
N u'
75! 240' $Qr 7v
OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE
huntington beach planning department
note: all pakru are 30"diam.
30'to 35' in height®
ell
22�
W
W St' �
H
19
'
22-(� 8 block wall
75-61
FIRE STATION
F,. s2'
x 37'
H 1 story fim ne 2 :Tory concrete
211
F-
W
W
PECAN AVENUE a.c. parking area H
9
j OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE : NORTH
PECAN AVENUE
�--- a. c. parking area
® ®—2s
e6 a
MEMORIAL HALL
2 story masonary/stucco
24 85 a
51
uu
n
Z W
W
Q 31 temporar ,�25 Z
W
31
trailers
X
grass area
so
CLINIC
' 1 story/temp. ,
74
AIN ® ss
®
®
I V
1 ze 2
27 7
ORANGE AVENUE
OLD CIVICCENTER SOUTH
CE ER SITE
rr
II �
_ I ! Neil Mill slim
iIIN am III N��IN YNl�la
In Ron IN 1 la 1111111011Hall
---.- I "MA
• �"-1- �.�� ___.--- � NNE ^_.p�
N ( n>>N���1i11Y!lNIINI
INA
N aNpNNp plplpnN
iNNIUM11111111IYNIa IONNIPPRIMMINI
NI IYY IN pl II IN IIII'I I YN NNNiNNpI
101111111111 implimpiNnonliHmmmi
• INp Npl I'IIIN NN I1 aYl 'Ili NIIIYIANN �IAI,NNI�i
�W NI YYIN fIi�YNIINI aNNYYYN BY'YI�I gNNtINIINI
iIN! IYI aINN NNIr IRII IIIlAAlAl IIIA ad plAaYp
IIN IaINNN pgallgn IIIIIINI IIA pll1 3i npN MNMUNa
IIIN ppplNlNl plN l NlllNIIAN'NAl NNl Illaa
NIN NaNNIN N NI Ila a1Na1 N a1N�w
A gplaAN pllli INII �rl 111 i �aa Nara
Ipa q rINNAIrd alalM �
� Ida MaIiI�IN I Ii11NINl IM
�
all..prilYil!iN L
in 1 NNNN
ON1 111MI NO- alprrll �
G NN RINN aNHa
tN � a I (i 1 11 dltlpla
I M NN aNNNIlNN
W alla IMpll �tAp'I p plplppp Ag1011Ra
NY NNYaYN rpYllll� �
.r111 Ia11M IIII !11 IY lAlaa alYll�r
111111111111MIM d I liming"
IIpIM allla IilAlalil'IBIIIrIHNI pNMNNpp i
na II1M 111 aa1N: L,
=11N IMMUNE
p UNIN ago-
MISS
N all I
"Alms-
i
-- wN IaI�INq !Ilpwlll Iwpl� Itl�w
MIl MpAwAA w Ap �' AA 4YNpIN1 WIHIwA'
lup MpIIYIIAq �aunlHlq ,htpwAn mAOPNa1 Adi®Iw
� .1� NNIIAIIIAi wiMilAM �IpAA AAiIgAMI Npwlw �
• � -�� gllq�illlN Apppnap''INpplAtp.rppprpll wnlwl •
., !�'NNHIIRHH HI�MNNp abAl w �•
' ' �M gllllpNHR AnAAINpI yNpp w AMIAgNII
�15MI11IN111191flotiawAAINNWW INNER
w 1NM N nAA rlippppp 'MpY INAYAIA
! w .plN �tA411AA AHAtl�pll " I��� i 1p41 IIAANHpH'.
� Ipp aal�wA AIIpAppp gppMppa IIAIIAIIUA
� INN gURnnIIH AHIIIIAAN NNnq IInnAAAN
IUN ��Ilrn AppplpNl . rpgtlppq NNMI#!I�
NNAINIM AIM111m n,unpin pnNpNNA NAIIAIIwA
MN gNpnllAA I�rYppll ,N AA AH�pNAN -----Won
� �. '7A AIMIAHUI iiAApA� aAAAAIAI AIINNNIIN' AnAAAftIi
pfa Il�prlA gkWpNllp "prnrAA npgpypp nl!iHgliq
1111 MpwU 1/1111111 "�)MIA_AAA IlAlidlpla/AAAAR"N
wIpN I ��A�� plluuuna� _ IiA I �NpwAw ��',
IIM npu IHI �NAlllp NgwAA�' NApN�
_pt1 N�Nrrlr rI�p1I 1N rNl.nn �� Ip .
. �A NNt1AAAA AnRIIYN�'i!" IliumIAIw
INN rNp N. 111 ;gyp � IMI
INN MN111IIIN 0541111el
p_aMlllalllp Np
: 19 IPA MA
. " �Nlk MIpII�NA WAlww Aq�MM �M� �.
palilawaNi�l � wp�alTalliplw
- UNI9AAw6d 110111111111WIIirApA
.�!INM MIAiAw AApNNIM p"M polhoo
,'a wl�l NNw •
IIIpI�Nlww tr'`
• CITY OF HunTinGT0n BEACH
Ila DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648. (714) 536-5271
October 10, 1978
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals; Senior Citizen Housing
Gentlemen:
The City of Huntington Beach is seeking proposals for the construction
of Senior Citizen Housing and a Senior. Citizen Center on City-owned
property. Enclosed for your review please find a Request for Proposals
which details the anticipated project and the necessary proposal contents .
The City will use Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds to
improve the 3. 64 acre site and will lease it to the developer selected
by the City Council.
If your firm is interested in submitting a proposal, please plan to
attend one of the meetings we have scheduled to. discuss this project.
.1 . Monday, October 16 , 1978
2 : 00 P.M.
Room B-7 , Lower Level
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2 . Wednesday, October 18 , 1978
10: 00 A.M.
B-8, Lower Level
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach
Please contact us to confirm your attendance at one of these meetings at
(714) 536-5541.
The deadline for submitting proposals is November 17 , 1978 at 4 : 00 P.M.
The City is also seeking developers who own or control sites within the
City and who would be willing to participate with the City in a plan to
provide mortgage assisted housinq for low- and moderate income households .
You may also express your interest in this project at one of the above
meetings or by phoning the above number. .
If you should have any questions regarding either of these projects, please
do not hesitate to phone me . I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours ,
�/_le�
Steph Ko er
Senior Comm ity Development Specialist
SVK:gc
Encl.
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
OLD CIVIC CENTER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DISTRIBUTION LIST
1. Robert Coles
701 W. 16 St.
Cost esa, Calif. 92627
5 -4220
2. C. LeRoy Doty
Doty & Assoc.
/ 306 E. PCH
Long Beach, Calif. 9080
(213) 591-1361
3. Alvin P. Burrell, Asst. Vice Pres.
National Housing Consultants
/ 12735 Ventura Blvd. , Suite 28
�/ `. . Studio City, Calif. 91604
(213) 877-9788 v
4. Arnold Rosenstein, L
Director of Real Estate
Housing Affiliates Inc.
2050 Century Park East, Suite 300
` Los Angeles, California 90067
(213) 553-4906 & 879-2580
5. Thomas L. Sal'--'ran
Real Estate gvelopment & Consulting
11 943' Hilg -r-d AVe.
Los A les, Calif. 90024
f 477-8057
6 . Mark Maltzman
Shapell Government' Housing, Inc.
/ 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, California
(213) 6.55-7330
7 : Sherman Gardne , President
Goldrich/Kes -Inc.
425 So. Fairfax
Los geles, California 90036
2,113' ) 937-2990
8 . George Jones
Forest City D 11on �JVO
11611 Sa/Vicente Blvd,
Los Angeles, Calif. 90049
(21 820-6801
t
9. Frank Mola /
Mola Development Co.
419 Main Street �.
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648
536-2547
10. B. G. Williams
411 Main Street, #Buyt '
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648
536-4022
11. Family Home Builders /Inc.
16168 Beach Blvd.
n Huntington each, Calif.
-n -
88—�'02 0
12. Jim Foxx
Foxx-Development Corp.
305 17_th St.
Hunt1 gton Beach, Calif. 92648
5�•fT2 5 91
13. /Frank H. Ayres and on Const. Co.
Drawer "A"
Hun tingtoy each, Calif.
'2fi.2---6683
14. Classic Develo n-t-Corp. ,t,A
12700 Knott ve. , Suite . B
Garden G.r- ve, Calif. 92645
89.7.-1 75
15. Janes Company
/` -1-7 9 6�—S•lep�Park—e-krr"i—,Sir-±t-e' F
16. Frank Buccol
Buccola Co,,m any
/1 4501 Birch St.
Newp o Beach, Ca 92660
♦
Attn: John Prailer
5 0-8833
17 . illiam L. Pereira, Assoc.
Ur nu
Square
P.O. x 186
MacArthu Blvd.
Corona del r, Calif. 92625
Attn: Graham J. Kaye-Eddie, V.P.
644-0620
M
18 . W & B Builders, Inc. YL,/
1617 Pontius Ave. Suite 301
Los Angeles, Calif. 90025
Attn: D. Frank Thompson, V.P. Land Acquisiton
(213) 478-6515
19. Tobin Realtv Inc.
n 5142 Warner Ave.
Huntington Beach, Calif.
Attn- Hal Tobin, President
84 - 1371
20 . Ring Bros . �
501 Santa Monica Blvd. , Suite 700
SantaM�In�ica, Calif. 90401
Atrr Gary Thompson ir•�/ �►�'"'`�
21. Hahn Development p.
200 Continenta-1 Blvd.
E1 Segundo-�'Calif. 90250
c A�tn-rack Spencer
22 . E est W. Hahn, Inc.
231 est E1 Segundo Blvd.
Hawtho e, Calif. 90250
Attn: Ja C. Spencer, Project Coordinator
(213) 757-8 1
23 . Rich- Battaglia and�Assoc. •/�'
n 16168 Beach Blvd #260
Hunting-:�Q-n—g'each, Calif. 92647
242� 9
24. Urban West Communities
3030 South Bundy Drive
1 Los Angeles, California 90066
Attn: Joel Rottman, President
(213) 390-8046
25. SWA Group
219 artin - Suite 155
Irvine, California 92715
Donald H. ompkins, Principal
833-3973
26. EDAW, Inc.
220 Newport Center Dr.
n Newport Beach, Calif. 926 0
Attn: Keith A. French, Principal
(714) 644-9104
27 . RGM
1352 Pine St.
Santa Monica, Calif. 90405
Attn: Richard G. Mitchell
(213) 392-5302
28 . Joseph L. Alfanns
Huntington -'ofessional, Suite D
Z 305 Oran e�Ave.
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648
3922
29. KCS Systems, Inc.
Box 337
7 San Juan Capistrano, Calif. 92675
/. Attn: Denis P. Kutch, President
831-3073
30. nv ..a• •���
(1 17500 Redhill --_Saw- C-OY"
Irvine, Calif.
957-1106
31. :7G51drzch & Kest
15233 Ventura Boulevard___ _j0
; Suite 816
Sherman. Oaks CA 91402, A to Manny Afterget
32. Hermansen Construction
Charlie Hermansen
615 17th Street 9G� o?Toy'
Huntington Beach, California
33. Jarrard Development
Bob Jarrard/ I-
`� 7700 Slater Ave. '
Hu51r gton Beach, Calif. 92647
5A8 3333
34 . George E. Moss
George E. Moss Enterprises ,, /
18455 Burbank Boulevard
Tarzana, California 91356'
35. Robert J. Z inng.r--abe -Yv�
18811 Florida Street '
H2�nt i "ton Beach, Calif. 92648
36. " Rolo West
First Chri's-t-ian Church
1207 a-in Street
Hu- ington Beach, CA 92648
37. Bruce Tripp
Assistant to Div. President
Kaufman & Broad Homes, Inc.
Kent Land Co. �)
18902 Bardeen Way
Irvine, CA 92715
i
r
' k
38. Mr. Edward D.,S-6lich
Caddilac/Fa rview Homes
500 Newport Center Drive
Suite-1815
Newport Beach, CA 92660
39. Genge Consultants
r
c/o Rick Coacher
17500 Redhill Ave.
Irvine, Calif. 92714