Golden Shovel - Westwood Terrace Development Proposal by Micah Burger

IN BALBOA PARK

OPENING 2017

RESERVOIR BEARS University of California, Berkeley

NAIOP Golden Shovel Challenge 2012 Fred Bayles | Chris Brown | Micah Burger | Dan D’Orazi | Steve O’Connell

CONTENTS 1. List of References .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 2 a.

Key Challenges .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Cal Proposal ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Process Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Financial Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 4

3. Client ‐ SFPUC ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 a.

Overview of Role .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Client Core Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 5

4. Current Environment ............................................................................................................................................. 5 a.

Area Overview – Balboa Reservoir ................................................................................................................... 5

Primary Neighborhood Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 6

I. City College of San Francisco ............................................................................................................................. 6 II. Ocean Avenue Revitalization Collaborative ...................................................................................................... 7 III. Westwood Park Neighborhood Association .................................................................................................... 8 c.

Review of General Plan and Existing EIR ........................................................................................................ 10

5. Our Concept ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 a.

Proposed Land‐Uses: ...................................................................................................................................... 13 I. Student Housing ............................................................................................................................................... 13 II. Multifamily ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 III. For‐Sale Residential ........................................................................................................................................ 14 IV. Replacement Parking ...................................................................................................................................... 15

The Challenge: Density, Traffic and “Parking, Parking, Parking” ................................................................... 15

I. Density ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 II. Parking ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 III. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 2

Our Solution: .................................................................................................................................................. 16 I. Industry Support:........................................................................................................................................... 17 II. Excerpts from the Balboa Area Plan Supporting our Density Proposal: ........................................................ 17

“Downside Scenario” ...................................................................................................................................... 18

6. Market opportunity Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 18 a.

Locational Context and Market Area Definitions ........................................................................................... 19

Macro‐Economic Context ............................................................................................................................... 20

Supply‐Demand Dynamics – Potential Product Types .................................................................................... 22 I. Apartment Market .......................................................................................................................................... 22 II. For‐Sale Residential Market ........................................................................................................................... 25 III. Student Housing Market ............................................................................................................................... 27 IV. Office Market ................................................................................................................................................ 27 V. Retail Market ................................................................................................................................................. 28

Buyer/Renter Profiles and Segmentation ....................................................................................................... 28

Development Opportunities and Site Positioning .......................................................................................... 30

I. Apartments ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 II. For‐Sale Residential........................................................................................................................................ 31 III. Student Housing ............................................................................................................................................ 32 IV. Retail ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 V. Office ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 f.

Highest and Best Use Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 34 I. Residual Conclusions and Allocation Results ................................................................................................... 39

7. Community Outreach Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 39 a.

Strategy for Community Outreach – Avalon Bay Model ................................................................................ 39

8. RFP and Disposition Process ‐ Let the Market Determine the Highest and Best Use .......................................... 40 a.

SFPUC Land Disposition Process ..................................................................................................................... 41

Timing of RFQ and RFP Creation: .................................................................................................................... 42 3

The RFQ and RFP Strategic Process: ............................................................................................................... 43

Public RFP Scoring System: ............................................................................................................................. 44

e. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) and Purchase Agreement – “Partnering for the Entitlement Process” ................................................................................................................................................................... 45 f.

Fee Simple Land Sale Versus Ground Lease Option ....................................................................................... 47

g. Anticipated RFP Responders: ‐ Deal Structure .................................................................................................... 48 I. Large Well Capitalized Multifamily REIT ........................................................................................................ 48 II. Private Development Groups backed by Institutional Capital ...................................................................... 48 III. Master Developer – Flip Strategy .................................................................................................................. 49 9. Design .................................................................................................................................................................. 49 a.

Density buffers and Build Up .......................................................................................................................... 50

Site Access ...................................................................................................................................................... 51

Building Design: .............................................................................................................................................. 52 I. Townhomes – Based on Neighborhood Design Guidelines .............................................................................. 52 II. Multifamily – Complimentary to Avalon and CCSF ......................................................................................... 54 III. Student Oriented Rental – Seemless Exterior Design – Interior Focus on Efficiency ..................................... 55

Open Space: .................................................................................................................................................... 56

II. Street Treatment ........................................................................................................................................... 56 II. Open Green Space ........................................................................................................................................... 61 III. Public Art ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 IV. Pedestrian / Bicycle Access ............................................................................................................................. 65 a.

Sustainability: ................................................................................................................................................. 65 I. LEED ............................................................................................................................................................... 65 II. Solar ............................................................................................................................................................... 66 III. Stormwater Infiltration and Capture ............................................................................................................. 66 IV. Car Sharing .................................................................................................................................................... 67

Constructability – Construction Phasing......................................................................................................... 67

10.

Financial Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 70

Development Program Financial Summary .................................................................................................... 70

Land Purchase – “Downside Scenario” plus Density Bonus ........................................................................... 72

Summary of Assumptions for Pro Forma ....................................................................................................... 73 I. Multifamily and Parking Revenue ................................................................................................................. 73 II. Townhome and Student Housing Disposition ............................................................................................... 76

Cost ................................................................................................................................................................. 80

I. Development Cost Summary ......................................................................................................................... 80 II. Infrastructure Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 81 III. CFD Bond Financing ....................................................................................................................................... 82 IV. Hard Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 83 V. The Union Factor ........................................................................................................................................... 86 e.

Equity .............................................................................................................................................................. 87

II. Equity Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 88 f.

Debt ................................................................................................................................................................ 88 I. Construction Financing .................................................................................................................................. 88 II. Construction to Permanent Financing........................................................................................................... 89 III. HUD Financing ............................................................................................................................................... 89 IV. Tax Exempt Bond and Tax Credit Financing .................................................................................................. 90 V. Debt Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 90

Investment Returns ........................................................................................................................................ 90 I. Reservoir Bears Proposed Development ....................................................................................................... 90

h. 11.

Development Timeline ................................................................................................................................... 93 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 94

Appendix A – Market Opportunity Analysis .................................................................................................................... Appendix B – Financial Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... Appendix C – RFQ/RFP Process ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Appendix D – Development Costs ................................................................................................................................... Appendix E – Construction Costs ..................................................................................................................................... Appendix F – Sustainability .............................................................................................................................................. Appendix G – Letters of Support .....................................................................................................................................

1. LIST OF RE FERENCES Reservoir Bears would like to thankk the following individuals for their timee and assistan nce througho out ess: this proce NAIOP SITTE SPONSORS Gary Dow wd – SFPUC David Pro owler –SFPUC C Consultant U PANEL NAIOP JURY Matt Field – TMG (Jury Chair) malian – Mission Bay Dev. Seth Ham Michael JJameson – Prud dential Harry O’B Brien – Coblenzz, Patch, Duff & Bass LLLP Gary Palm mer – Westbro ook Partners Susan Saggy – W3 Partne ers Jonathan Stern – Port o of SF John Wells – Mechanicss Bank O NAIOP COORDINATORS Dennis W Williams – North hMarq Capital Lauren Yo oung – PCCP Lauren Prressman – Aspiriant Lisa Brow wn – NAIOP TEAM ADVVISOR Craig Davvey, Diablo We ealth Mngmt A FRANCISCO CITY OF SAN Sean Elsb bernd – Districtt 7 Supervisor Kate McG Gee – SF Planniing – Author of Balboaa Park Area Plan Lisa Pagan – SF Econom mic Dev. Ken Rich – SF Economicc Dev. dike – Director City of SF John Upd Real Estate Division COMMUNITY OUTREACH Anita The eoharis – Westwood Park Neighborrhood Assoc. Catherine e Hickey – Ocean Ave Revitalizaation Collab. David Liggget – CCSF Peter Golldstein – CCSF Sylvia Nguyen– City CarrShare DEVELOPERRS & OWNERS Meg Sprigggs – AvalonBaay Patrick Ke ennedy – Pano oramic Int. Rick Holliday – Holliday Dev.

DEVELOPERS & OWNERS (CONNTINUED) Jackie Safier – Prometheuus Dean Henryy – Legacy Parttners Kim Havenss – Wilson Meaany Sullivan on – Tishman SSpeyer Carl Shanno Peter Solar – Equity Resid ential John Wayland – BRE Prop erties bury – Mill Creeek Res. Alex Waterb Robert Free ed – SummerH ill Homes Mike Kim – SIMEON Comm mercial – Shea Homes David Best – Faith Kirkpaatrick – Bernal Heights Andy Beck ‐‐ Avalon Bay Will Hu – Prrado Group Bob Lalanne e – Lalanne Grooup Trey Clark – – McFarlane Paartners Chris Nehls – Ellis Partnerss Steve Shankks – SKS Invest ments Alan Chamo orro – Grosvennor Stuart Thom mpson – Pulte H Homes Jamie Choy – Signature Deev. Don Capobrres – Grosvenoor Jesse Nelson – CIM Groupp mmer – Starwoood Evan Schwim ARCHITECTURRE, DESIGN & ENGGINEERING Karen Alsch huler – Perkins + Will Glen Wood – BAR Archite cts David Israel – BAR Architeects Chris Haeggglund – BAR Arrchitects Todd Addair – BKF Engineeers dwana ‐ Internnational Dilip L. Nand Parking Dessign SALES/MARKKETING Chris Foley – – Polaris Grou p Jason Flynn – Eastdil Secu red FINANCIAL A Justin Hildebrandt – USAA Paul Meglerr – JMP Securitties Chris Cole – – Invesco Morgan Linggle – JP Morgaan Michael Shinn – Bank of A America ord – HFF Kevin Redfo 1

FINANCIAL (CONTTINUED) D Doug Childers –– HFF KKevin Catlett ‐ Principal Globaal Inv. John Manning –– JLL n Mut. Jory Halperin –– Northwestern N Nathan Elliot – MetLife Real EEstate EEileen Gallagheer – Stone & YYoungberg SScott Sollers – SStone & Younggberg W William Birdseyy ‐ Carlyle CONSULTANTS TTim Cornwell –– The Concord d G Group PPhil Williams – Webcor Consu ulting BERKELEY FACULTTY B Bill Falik – Boalt School of Law w N Nancy Wallace – Berkeley Haas PPeter Bosselmaan – College off EEnvironmental Design LAND‐USE ATTORRNEYS M Mary Murphy –– Gibson Dunn A Anne Mudge – Cox, Castle an nd N Nicholson M Margot Bradish h – Cox, Castle and N Nicholson SUSTAINABILITY M Matthew Culliggan – SunPoweer M Mark Meredith h – AquaCell C Chris Pawlik – EEPR2 M Megan White –– Webcor CONSTRUCTION C Corky Silva – Baarry Swenson A Aaron Barger –– Barry Swenso on Joe Olla – Nibbi Brothers GC M Mike Smith – Jo ohnstone Moyyer

2. EXECUTIVEE SUMMARY Y The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) iss currently exxploring the developmen nt and on potential o of a 17.5 acre site called Baalboa Reservooir (the “Site”” or “Subject Property”) lo ocated dispositio in San Fraancisco, Califo ornia. As part of this proccess, SFPUC taasked Reservoir Bears (“Caal”) with provviding a thorouggh analysis culminating in aa recommend ded developm ment program m and disposiition strategyy most likely to m maximize the opportunity o of the Site wh hile minimizinng risks. The Subje ect Property provides a unique u transit oriented laarge scale deevelopment o opportunity in San Francisco. Cal conduccted detailed analysis of e entitlement feeasibility, maarket opportu unities, design and developm ment approacches, financin ng options, and dispositioon strategies.. The follow wing memorandum presents aa summary off Cal’s most salient findinggs, conclusionns and recommendations. A. KEY C HALLENGESS Througho out this repo ort, Cal addrresses a variety of challlenges that the Site will face duringg the developm ment process. he Site will ne eed to overco ome a difficullt entitlementt process. In order to maxximize the value of 1. Th th his unique Sitte, rezoning aand increased d density will be required.. Obtaining tthese entitlem ments in n the City of SSan Francisco can be a draw wn‐out proceess spanning m multiple yearrs. 2. As the largest student parkking area on‐campus, presservation of parking capacity on the B Balboa Reservoir is a ffocal point for both the Citty College andd the local co ommunity. 3. Due to the lim mited access p points and laarge influx of f new residen nts, traffic im mpact and flow w is a primary concern for the pro oject. of the Site will require sign nificant infrasstructure costts. 4. Development o We will exxplore these key challenge es in detail and provide ann in‐depth an nalysis of potential approaaches. A creative e strategy mu ust be taken to maximize e the econom mic value of tthe land while also strikin ng the balance b between comm munity and environmentaal benefits. B. CAL P ROPOSAL We are proud p to pressent the Cal team’s highe est and best use development propossal for the Su ubject Property. To achieve m maximum Sitte value, we h have includedd a strategic m mix of uses th hat aim to ad ddress d with site density while also leveragingg the benefitss of this primee public assett. critical concerns raised

Westwood Te W errace ‐ Produ uct Program SSummary Product Type Unit C Count Unit Density Parkking Stalls M Multi‐Family

452

385

Sttudent Housing

483

178

To ownhomes

117

NA 1,052

NA 60

796 1,181

Public otals To

Core Proggrammatic Co oncepts of the Cal Team P Proposal: 1. Proposed mix of residentiaal uses strikes optimal baalance betweeen highest reevenue generating property uses and political feasibility. 2. Maintain majo M ority of studen nt parking availability on‐ssite; a major cconsideration n of both CCSSF and th he surroundin ng neighborhood groups. Current Sitee layout allow ws for developer to build b below th he natural graade without incurring significant excavaation costs.

3. In nclusion of “car‐free” “ Stu udent Housin ng units allow ws Site to rreach revenu ue and absorrption potential while minimizing negative traaffic impacts highlighted aas major con ncern due to Site’s mited ingresss/egress pointts. lim W to east density build dup starting with w low‐dennsity townho omes increasiing to mid‐deensity 4. West re ental productt in order to tie in the Site with existing community. C. PROC ESS SUMMA ARY In order to t maximize land value, C Cal recommen nds that the SFPUC partn ner with a maaster develop per to obtain req quired rezoning and entitlements. Thiss will include a thorough R RFQ/RFP process, resultingg in an exclusive negotiating agreement between b the developer aand SFPUC. Based on cconversationss with e master devveloper is like ely to build thhe multifamilly component of the Site along potential partners, the with nece essary infrasttructure in order o to captture a largerr share of vaalue. In add dition, the m master developerr will enter into agreeme ents with tow wnhome andd student ho ousing develo opers to purrchase certified p pads after seccuring entitlements. To m mitigate the finnancial risk to o the develop per and attract the highest qu uality propossal, Cal utilized a “downsid de case” land valuation with a density bonus structu ure to provide additional upside inherent to the Site. D. FINAN NCIAL ANAL YSIS elopment con ncept illustrattes our propo osal for the h ighest and beest use of thee site. A sum mmary Cal’s deve of key finaancials are prrovided below w:

Westwood Terrace ‐ Devvelopment SSummary C Land Purchaase from PUC Downside SScenario Density Bon nus Total

Total $3 32,198,868 24,840,000 2 57,038,868 $5

d) Yield to Cosst (Untrended Yield to Cosst (Stabilized)) Unlevered I RR Levered IRR

Units 500 552 1,052

6.0% 7.5% 12.0% 16.1%

Our plan has benefittted from in nvaluable inssight and addvice from lo ocal real esttate develop pment es, politicians, community groups, finan ncial advisorss and industryy professionaals. It has been an companie amazing learning expe erience filled with highs an nd lows as ouur concepts aand strategiees have crystaallized nsely enjoyedd this processs and we ho ope you enjo oy the over the past several weeks. We have immen Reservoir Bea ars Golden Sh hovel Develop pment Propoosal! 2012 Cal R 4

3. CLIENT ‐ SFFPUC A. OVER VIEW OF RO OLE Cal has be een asked to act as a consultant to the SFPUC to creeate a disposiition and devvelopment strrategy for the sitte that can be e used as the basis for an R RFP. In orderr to formulatee a plan for the site, it is ccritical to first un nderstand SFP PUC’s fundam mental goals. B. CLIEN NT CORE OBJJECTIVES We have conducted se everal meetin ngs with our cclient represeentatives Garry Dowd and David Prowleer and our attention on two core o objectives forr SFPUC: focused o 1. Facilita ate a feasible e plan that wiill maximize e economic be nefit for SFPU UC rate payers. 2. Encou urage a resou urce focused sustainable developmen nt that leveraages the ben nefits of the Site’s high denssity urban inffill location an nd prime pub blic transit acccess. benefit of SFPUC’s These corre objectives have formed d the basis off our plan to maximize the economic b dispositio on while pushing for the highest level off resource preeservation th hrough innovaative design. 4. CURRENT EENVIRONMEENT A. AREA OVERVIEW – BALBOA RESERVOIR Originally constructed in 1957 by the t San Francisco Water Department (now the Saan Francisco P Public C the Balboa Reservoir has never beeen used for its original purpose of w water Utilities Commission), storage. TThe site is loccated across ffrom the Cityy College of SSan Francisco’’s Ocean Aveenue campus,, west of Phelan n Avenue. Th he site is bou und by Bisho op Riordan H High School aand the Wesstwood residential neighborh hood on the North; rear property line es of homes on Plymouth h Avenue on the West; P Phelan Avenue o on the east; aand the rear p property lines of the Avallon Bay Oceaan Avenue deevelopment o on the south. Fo ollowing a trransfer agree ement execu uted in July of 2011, th he original rreservoir sitee was reconfigured into Wesstern and Easstern portionss. The San Frrancisco City College now w owns the Eaastern portion and plans to fu urther develo op it with a P Performing Arrts Center Co omplex. The W Western portion of he SFPUC and d is currently being used bby the City College for stud dent parking u under the site iss owned by th the termss of a fully revvocable zero d dollar lease. Over the last twenty yyears, several attempts have been madde to develop p the Balboa R Reservoir butt have failed due e to objection ns from local community ggroups. Rick H Holliday, foun nder of Bridgee Housing and d CEO of Hollidaay Developme ent, rememb bered workingg on the site in the 1980’’s and comm mented, “the ssite is about traffic, traffic, traffic ‐‐ it hass been for 20 0 years and itt is getting w worse.” Conveersations with Lisa Pagan, project manage er for the San n Francisco Offfice of Econoomic and Worrkforce Devellopment, and d Sean 5

Elsbernd, Supervisor o of District 7, confirm that tthe communitty remains hiighly organizeed and sensittive to new deve elopment proposals. B. PRIMA ARY NEIGHB BORHOOD SSTAKEHOLD ERS Three prim mary neighbo orhood stakeholders have e an active intterest in the Balboa Park Reservoir; th he San Francisco City Collegge, the Wesstwood Park Neighborhoood Associattion and the Ocean Avvenue Revitalization Collaborative. Secon ndary stakeholder interesst groups incclude the Occeanview, Merced Heights, Ingleside Neighbors in Action A (OMI‐N NIA); Inglesidde Terrace N Neighborhood d Association n and e Neighborho ood Associatio on. Sunnyside I. CITY CO OLLEGE OF SSAN FRANC ISCO

The City C College of San n Francisco (C CCSF) is a two o‐year collegee operated byy the San Francisco Comm munity College District. The O Ocean Avenue e campus covvers 67 acres and has a stu udent body o of more than thirty ents. Althouggh the City CCollege curren ntly faces a severe shortt‐term thousand full and parrt‐time stude budget crrisis that may force the sch hool to curtail enrollmentss, the school ccontinues to plan for longg‐term 1 annual growth of abou ut 1%. City Colle ege’s current building plan ns include th he addition oof a Performing Arts Centter on the Eaastern Reservoir Site. This project is fully funded and e expected to bbe completed d in 2013.2 The school has also obtained approvals for the addition n of a new 80 00 car parkin g garage on tthe Eastern p portion of cam mpus. 3 This proje ect is currently unfunded. 1 Goldstein n, Peter. Vice C Chancellor for FFinance and Ad dministration, City College off San Francisco o. Phone intervview April 4, 201 12. 2 Ligget, Daavid. Director o of Facilities Plaanning & Consttruction, City CCollege of San FFrancisco. Phone Interview A April 6, 2012. 3 Ligget, Daavid. 6

LMN’s ren ndering of Pe erforming Artts Center Com mplex

Conversattions with Citty College rep presentativess suggest thatt the predom minant concerrns that the sschool has for the site pertain n to reduction ns in parking. The Reservo ir is the schoo ol’s primary p parking facilitty and with overr 32% of stud dents and 63% of faculty driving to scchool4, any su ubstantial red duction of paarking would cre eate serious problems forr the campuss. If the parkking issue can n be resolved d, the City Co ollege 5 would be likely to sup pport on‐site developmentt that providees student or faculty housing. To‐datee, the City College has not be een an active e advocate orr opponent oof nearby devvelopment6 but we believee that dynamic is likely to chaange should n new developm ment be propposed that substantially im mpacts the sch hool’s supply of parking. II. OCEAN N AVENUE R REVITALIZATTION COLLA ABORATIVE The Ocean Avenue Revitalizatio on Collaborattive (OARC) is a borhood resiidents, mercchants volunteerr collaborativve of neighb and com mmunity orgganizations that endeaavor to su upport improvem ment efforts on Ocean Avvenue. The O OARC spearheeaded efforts th hat led to tthe establish hment of th he Ocean Avvenue Communiity Benefit Di strict (CBD) in n December o of 2010. As aa CBD, the districct has the abbility to levy aassessments against properties Avenue CBD, tthese servicees include cleeaning to fund special benefit services. In the case of the Ocean A and landsscaping servicces as well ass marketing aand signage too support thee commercial area.7 The SSFPUC 4 Annual TD DM Monitoring Report for Ciity College of SSan Francisco. Prepared by Feehr & Peers. April 2012. 5 Goldstein n, Peter. 6 Pagan, Lissa. Project Manager, SF Officce of Economicc and Workforcce Developmen nt. Phone Interview March 2 2, 2012. 7 Resolutio on to Establish the Ocean Ave enue Community Benefits Disstrict. Resolutiion No 587‐10.. December 16 6, 2010. 7

Balboa Re eservoir site is currently e exempt from assessment w within the Ocean Avenuee CBD. Should d new developm ment occur on n site, we wou uld not expect the exempttion to continue. Based on n conversatio ons with new wly appointed Executive Director Catherine C Hicckey, we iden ntified OARC as a strong communitty partner likkely to suppo ort new deve elopment of the Reservoir. Accordin ng to Catherine, “new resiidents in the communitty are a very good thing” ffor the 14‐blo ocks of retail along Oce ean Avenue that she repre esents. Furthermore, the OARC is just j beginnin ng efforts to better engaage the City College to o bring stude ents onto Occean Avenue.8 This effort would additionally a be supportted by ourr proposed pedestrian and bicycle e‐oriented dessign and stud dent‐housing program. RC provides a foundation ffor productivee communityy engagementt with We believve the supporrt of the OAR the reside ential neighborhood associations. These groups alrready have aa positive wo orking relation nship; local residents stronggly support efforts e to de evelop a moore pedestriaan‐friendly reetail environment. Moreoverr, Catherine h has experiencce working co ollaborativelyy with develo opers in the p past on comm munity engageme ent efforts an nd could be a tremendous resource for stewarding tthe process. III. WEST WOOD PAR K NEIGHBO RHOOD ASSSOCIATION The Westwood W Paark Neighborrhood Associ ation is a no on‐profit com mmunity advvocacy group p whose mem mbership conssists of Westw wood Park prroperty owneers. The Westtwood Park neighborhood n d is comprise ed of over 6880 bungalow w‐style homess originally bu uilt in the 19 920s and 193 30s and is the third largesst bungalow community iin the USA.9 B Based on conversations with h the local re eal estate co ommunity in conjunction with Supervvisor Elsbernd d, we identified the Westwood Park Ne eighborhood Association as the mostt likely group p to stronglyy and ny developme ent of the SFP PUC Balboa R eservoir site.. effectivelyy object to an On the suggestion s of Supervisor Elsbernd, the Cal team m engaged W Westwood Paark Neighborrhood Associatio on Vice Pressident Anita Theoharis to t discuss thhe neighborh hood’s goals. Following these conversattions, the Cal team was invited to attend the April 17, 2012 Westwood Park Association B Board meeting. During the m meeting, the C Cal team intro oduced generral project themes and solicited Board input d potential. Based B on thoose conversaations, we haave identified the on the siite and its development following concerns and d potential re esolutions: 8 Hickey, Catherine. Execcutive Director,, Ocean Avenue Revitalizatioon Collaborative. Interview Ap pril 21, 2012. 9 Theohariss, Anita. Planning and Zoningg Chair, Westw wood Park Assoociation. Intervview April 5, 20 012. 8

Key Conce erns – Westw wood Park Ne eighborhood Association Concerns

Desccription

Parkin ng

Desp pite neighborrhood parking permits, stud dents from CCSF frequenttly park in the neighborhoo od. SFMTA does not provvide sufficientt oversight. Too many drivvers in neigghborhood already an issue.

Trafficc

Heightt

Safetyy Issues

Bufferr Reducction

Potential Ressolution

Need to pro ovide replaceement parking ffor studentts. A devveloper migght aadditionally ggain support by paying forr a ddedicated MTTA parking offficer. CCity has apprroved a trafficc calming study oof the neighb borhood but currently do oes not have thee funding. Deeveloper migght ooffer to fund d study and corresponding mitigation meeasures. Hom mes in Westw wood Park are typically Lower denssity townho omes abutting 1.5 stories. Ho omeowners want to W Westwood PPark designed d to meet loccal retain the single‐‐family home character ddesign guideelines and co omplement the of th he local neigh hborhood. eexisting homes. The local comm munity reporrts seeing W Well‐lit and patrolled “pocket‐parkks” drugg deals and d is concerrned that aaway from m the Weestwood Paark additional open space or paarks might neighborhood. Parks deesign is in‐line element. w with current green spaces in Westwood further invite an undesirable e Park. The berm that se eparates the Reservoir Low‐density for‐sale developmeent site from the homes on Plymouth aabutting th he homes on Plymou uth Avenue provide es a desirab ble buffer A Avenue wo ould continu ue residenttial from m CCSF neighborhood feel.

The guiding principal for the Westwood W Paark Neighborrhood Association is preeservation o of the hood’s “Stree etcar Suburb”” character. While W the Asssociation haas been willin ng to supportt new neighborh developm ments such as Avalon Bay’ss Ocean Aven nue project, m members are highly skeptical of any changes to the Resservoir. When asked, “what would the Association like to see on n this site?” tthe initial resp ponse was hostile toward any new develo opment efforrts. Over the course of thee meeting, it became clear that nsiderable tim me and effortt to developing the mean ns to opposee new the Assocciation has dedicated con developm ment projectss in the areaa. These me easures incluude levying aadditional du ues for a “laawyer reserve,” collecting documentation for historical preservattion claims aand developiing mailing list to opposition qu uickly. mobilize o The Westtwood Park residents mo ost significantly impactedd by any pro oposal for deevelopment o of the Reservoir are the hom meowners thaat live on Plym mouth Avenuue, which run ns along the w western portiion of the site. A According to Anne Chen, aa homeowner on Plymoutth, the resideents of that b block “boughtt their homes fo or the berm.”” Of the boaard, Anne waas considerabbly more outtspoken in her conviction n that developm ment on site w would harm th he local comm munity. In deesigning a com mmunity outrreach program m, Cal recommends special co onsideration for this poten ntially outspooken subgrou up. 9

C. REVIEEW OF GENEERAL PLAN A AND EXISTIN NG EIR On April 7th of 2009 9, the San Frrancisco Board of Supervvisors adopteed the A Plan (“th he Plan”). Te en days laterr, Mayor New wsome Balboa Paark Station Area signed the e Plan’s legislation which was enacted d on May 18t h. The area ffor the Balboa Paark Area Plan is comprised of approximately 210 acr es and includ des the CCSF Oce ean Avenue Campus, C The e Ocean Aven nue Neighboorhood Comm mercial District, B Balboa Park and the Balboa Park BART Station. The Plan identifiees four key subareas; the Trransit Station n Neighborhood, the Ci ty College o of San oir and the Occean Avenue C Commercial D District. Francisco,, the Reservo

As it pertaains to the Baalboa Reservo oir Subarea, the Plan calls ffor “housing as a primary component tto any developm ment.” The Plaan identifies ttwo advantagges to developping housing on‐site: 1. Greater densitty would help p fill the “unpleasant voidd” created byy the Reservo oir and could d both enliven the co ommercial disstrict and imp prove public ttransportatio on ridership.” “e 2. New developm ment would fill the void between thee commerciaal district and d the surrounding neighborhoods, enticing residents r to walk to thee commerciaal district an nd use altern native methods of tra m ansportation. Certified iin December of 2008, the e final EIR for the Balboa PPark Station A Area Plan ideentifies a threee‐tier developm ment program m for the Proje ect Area. The Reservoir is iidentified as aa Tier 2 development; a project with anticcipated imple ementation ovver the next 5 5‐20 years. 10

Balboa Pa ark Station Area Plan EIR TThree Tier Land Use Progrram

It should be noted that the final Area A Plan EIR R calls for 5000 residentiall units on sitte with moree than of open space e. These dete erminations w were made p prior to the trransfer agreeement 100,000 ssquare feet o between SFPUC and C CCSF. Based o on conversatiions with botth the City Co ollege and th he Westwood d Park Associatio on, we believve that the proposals fo or the additioon of 100,0000 square feeet of open space provided at the expen nse of student parking would w elicit a strong negaative reaction n from comm munity stakehold ders. Moreover, the local community has h serious cconcerns abo out new largee unpatrolled d park 10 space attrracting crime and homelesss. 5. OUR CONC EPT Our proposed develop pment conce ept for the site s is the re sult of an evvolving proceess that has been holders and refined r by ad dvice from inndustry profeessionals. Our mix of uses and shaped by key stakeh o those usess strike a balance betweeen providing strong econo omic gains fo or the strategic positioning of ment plan that can gain the e public and ppolitical support necessaryy for entitlem ment. SFPUC and a developm ent our mixed d‐use residenttial developm ment: Westwo ood Terrace! We are prroud to prese

10 Theoharris, Anita. 11

We have sstrategically sselected three complemen ntary productt types that add unique vaalue to our combined d developmen nt concept. TThe form and locations of oour for‐sale townhome, m multifamily ren ntal and stude ent oriented e efficient rentaal units are pu urposefully coonceived and d placed to strrike a critical balance b between maxiimizing land vvalue for our client, ensuri ng entitlement feasibility and increasin ng the likelihood d of community support. A. PROP OSED LAND D‐USES: To be succcessful, a development proposal for the Reservooir needs to be both finaancially viablee and politicallyy feasible. To achieve these sometime es conflicting goals, the p proposed projject must (1)) fill a market demand d (2) gain supporrt of local stakeholders s port. These three and (3) gain City supp consideraations constitu ute the buildiing blocks of Cal’s proposeed program. I. STUDEN NT HOUSING G Student‐o oriented houssing providess several ben nefits to the local commu unity. Accorrding to CCSFF Vice Chancello or Peter Gold dstein, there is an “enorm mous need” for housing convenient tto campus that is currently unmet. Both h the local co ommunity and d the school are impacted d by this gap.. Without ho ousing ea, students aare forced to commute to school, addinng to both paarking and congestion prob blems in the are in the neighborhood. Without locaal housing, students must find rental housing in surrrounding envvirons nse and inco onvenience. This cost iss particularly high for CC CSF’s nearly 3,000 at considerable expen onal and outt‐of‐state stu udents, manyy of who arre looking fo or a more traditional caampus internatio experiencce. Student housing h addittionally meetts two primary goals of thhe City of Saan Francisco: sustainability and increasingg student‐hou using availability. Accordin ng to a 2009 study by Gru ubb & Ellis, the San Franccisco’s current su upply of stude ent housing o only meets ab bout one‐tentth of the overall need. In recognition o of this shortfall, the San Fraancisco Planning Commission approvved legislatio on in 2011 that providees an housing proje ects from affoordable housiing requiremeents (althouggh our exemption for residential student h Site doess not qualifyy, this exemption demon nstrates the political willl for studen nt housing in n San Francisco). To meett the City’s goals of red ducing car‐trravel, the student‐housin ng portion o of the ment will be entirely e car‐ffree with the e exception oof 11 car shaare spaces. P Patrick Kenneedy of developm Panoramic Interests co onfirmed thatt this was a viiable strategyy for student housing. The zero parking, ped destrian focu used student oriented renntal housing product thaat the Cal team is e exemplifiess a creative site solutionn that satisfiies all three of the objectives proposingg for the site outlined aabove. The immediate ad djacency to C CCSF providess a captive deemand pool ffocused around an internatio onal full time student population providing a strongg economic b benefit from tthis property type. The pedesstrian focus o of the projectt is intended tto appease thhe communities parking an nd traffic con ncerns since anyy students th hat we can house h on the e subject sitte will be lesss students tthat are currently commutin ng to site. Lasstly, there is ggreat political will in the CCity of San Fraancisco for this product typ pe. 13

II. MULTIFFAMILY The Balbo oa Park Statio on Area Plan identifies hou using as the pprimary recom mmended usee for the Reseervoir. Based on our market analysis, the ere is a large unmet needd for market‐‐rate housingg in San Fran ncisco. elopment of m multifamily housing on the e Balboa Reseervoir site wiill benefit botth the City an nd the New deve local com mmunity. As the premier TTOD site in Saan Francisco, developmen nt of reasonable density o on the Balboa Re eservoir will h help alleviate the lack of avvailable housiing in San Fraancisco while meeting the City’s goals of greater g sustainability thro ough LEED‐go old certificatioon and low p parking ratioss (0.85 spacees per unit). For local Ocean Avenue retailers, the infu usion of new customers w will aid in onggoing revitalizzation med at creating pedestrian n‐friendly retail. efforts aim In order tto foster city support for entitlement o of increased density at th he Site, our p proposal inclu udes a 20% afforrdable compo onent, above and beyond the 15% pra ctical requireement of the city. Througgh our conversattions with Faiith Kirkpatrickk of Bernal Heights Neigh borhood Cen nter, we havee a determineed our target affo ordability to b be 60% AMI. Multifamiily product iss economicallly attractive at the site. In our “down nside scenario” Cal established multifamiily as the high hest economic performer w when limitingg the site to 5500 units. There is clearly some communitty acceptance e of multifam mily given Avaalon Bay’s reccent Ocean A Avenue project, however iin our meetings with the community c the t Cal team m determineed that a laarge multifam mily develop pment e would face significant op pposition. Poolitically, thiss sentiment w was echoed b by the encompasssing the Site Board of SSupervisor re epresentative, Sean Elsberrnd, who told us that “anyy multifamily apartment project over 500 units on the ssite is comple etely infeasiblle”. III. FOR‐SA ALE RESIDE NTIAL ng with numerous community groups in the Balbooa Park Area, one of the concerns thaat Cal In speakin identified was preserrvation of the existing co ommunities’ suburban ch buffer haracter. To provide a b c uses u on the site and W Westwood Parrk neighborh hood, Cal’s d design between the larger commercial incorporaates a portion n of for‐sale ttownhomes d designed in‐li ne with local neighborhood guideliness. The result is aa density bufffer between tthe site and tthe local com mmunity and aa much‐need ded transition n zone between tthe spaces. The Cal teams strateggy for site prrogramming at the adjaceent residential propertiess to the eastt is to “meet the eir residentiaal back yards with complim mentary residdential yardss” from our townhomes o on the east of ou ur site. Originally developed and advertised d as “moderaately priced hhousing,” the Westwood P Park Neighborrhood n‐City living option priced considerably below more central residential has a longg history of prroviding an in locations. Cal’s design n and marketing would continue this trradition, answ wering a significant need in the City for ho ousing priced d at a level acccessible for young familiess.

IV. REPLA CEMENT PA ARKING Due to th he unique to opography off the Site, the developer has the opp portunity to build below‐grade parking at low relative e costs. Paid parking not only solves aa major conceern of the co ommunity but also nd in the locaal area due tto the serves as a revenue generator for the project. Parking is inn high deman o students commuting c to o CCSF and the lack of pparking dediccated to Oceean Avenue retail. number of Below we e will expand upon the imp portance of parking as it reelates to the kkey stakehold ders. B. THE C CHALLENGE:: DENSITY, TRAFFIC AN ND “PARKIN G, PARKING G, PARKING”” I. DENSITTY Early in our process, Cal met with K Kate McGee o of the SF Plannning Departm ment who au uthored the B Balboa ewing the sitte, Kate poi nted out that 500 resid dential units were Park Stattion Area Plaan. In revie contemplated for the e site in the EIR. One problematic aaspect of thiss unit count that it is an n “in‐ er” that limitss the econom mic feasibility of developingg the Site. A At 17.5 acres, 500 units givves an betweene average density d on siite of 29 units per acre. According to David Beest of Shea H Homes and SStuart Thompson, formerly in n land acquissition with Pu ulte, typicallyy townhome builders targget 18 – 22 h homes with Meg Sprriggs at Avaloon Bay, Peter Solar at Equity Residentiaal and per acre. Similarly, in discussions w Will Hu att Prado, apartment develo opers are striving to get deensities of ovver 80 units p per acre in this city format. M More importaantly, due to tthe large infrrastructure coosts associateed with the development o of the Site, 500 units severely limits the revenue pote ential of devvelopment an nd falls short of citywide goals. Lastly, lim miting the site to 500 uniits would also be an irressponsible usee of such a high value, ttransit oriented u urban in‐fill lo ocation. NG II. PARKIN The Balbo oa Park Statio on Area Plan n identifies paarking as onee of eight major foccus criteria fo or future devvelopment. With W more thhan 2,200 parked on n‐campus by 11AM, the City C College is a primary driver of parking avvailability in tthe area. Parkking off‐camp pus in residenntial areas by studen nts is prevalent (23% off student carr commuterss)11 and a source off tension with the local community. c As A the largestt student parking area on‐camp pus (1,400 parkers on East and West pportions), preservation of parkin ng capacity on o the Balboa Reservoir is a focal point for both the City College and tthe local com mmunity. Accordingg to David Ligggett, Directo or of Facilitiess Planning annd Construction, CCSF is ccurrently approved to build an 800‐stall structured parking facility o on‐campus buut lacks the fu unding. Construction is un nlikely ence in the ne ear future due to the scho ool’s ailing fisccal health. W Without replaccement parking for to comme students o on‐site, the C City College w will likely oppo ose any new ddevelopment of the site. 11 Annual TTDM Monitorin ng Report for C City College of San Francisco. Fehr & Peers. April 2012. 15

To mitigate development concernss and alleviate e the currentt parking preessure on the local neighborhoo od, CAL’s prroposal includes (1) replaacement parrking for students (2) funding for increased neighborhoo od parking m monitoring (3)) student housing (4) ( increased d car sharingg access and d (4) increassed parking rates. In combination, we be elieve these measures will encourrage use off public eighborhood s. transportation and discourage parkking in local ne III. TRAFF IC oncerns of lo ocal residentss pertaining to developm ment proposaals for the B Balboa Amongst the chief co hrough residential Reservoir is traffic. Primary complaints incclude cross ccutting and speeding th hoods. Westwood Heightts has been approved for a traffic calm ming study bu ut SFMTA doees not neighborh currently have the funding. In December 2009, a ttraffic calmin ng study was completed f or Sunnysidee, the residen ntial neighborrhood directly north n of the Balboa Rese ervoir. CAL believes that this study’s finding provvide a good proxy analysis for f the challe enges faced by the surro ounding neigghborhoods iincluding Weestwood Parkk and Westwood Highlands. To qualify fo or a traffic callming study, SFMTA consiiders the 85thh percentile speed; mum speed for the vast majority (85 5%) of driver s. Evidence o of exhibition driving, including the maxim “donuts”, is also taken n into conside eration. Acco ording to the Sunnyside reeport, 85% sp peeds ranged d from 24‐38mph h on neighborhood streetss. In its finaal report for Sunnyside, th he SFMTA re ecommends sseveral trafficc calming meeasures, inclu uding: arterial management m improvemen nts, speed hu umps and thhe addition o of median islands. To alleeviate traffic con ncerns related d to Balboa R Reservoir, CALL proposes fu nding the Weestwood High hlands traffic study and assocciated mitigattion measuress, as feasible.. C. OUR SSOLUTION: Our initial meetings with w Superviso or Elsbernd and a Communnity representtatives gave us clear messsages against in ncreased trafffic, parking and commu unity impactss resulting frrom new deevelopment in the neighborh hood. Shortly after these e meetings, the Cal team identified stu udent housing as an innovvative solution to t the challe enges identifiied above. Cal believess that Westw wood Terracee can leverage its proximityy to CCSF thro ough the inclu usion of stude ent oriented rental producct that will saatisfy a high u unmet demand. By placing students s on‐ssite that wou uld otherwisee be commutting to schoo ol, we alleviatte the on concerns of o the local community. c In addition, by segmentiing the Site into three diistinct congestio product types, t we also o capitalize on o product diversity that will hedge against the rissk associated d with long abso orption timefrrames and fluctuating marrket conditionns for a singlee‐use develop pment.

INDUSSTRY SUPPO RT:

With thiss Site Plan in i hand, Cal solicited industry feedbback to gaugge support for the prop posed developm ment and to q question the vvalidity of a d density increaase. The ressponses receiived were strrongly positive aand validated our rational. Below are selected quootes in respon nse to our qu uestions abou ut our levels of d density on site e:  “Any housing you can provide w will be a drop p in the buckeet compared to our need.”” ‐ Peter CSF Goldsstein, Vice Chaancellor of CC  “500 units is a crim minal waste o of a public assset.” ‐ Patrickk Kennedy, Paanoramic Inteerests  “The Cal concept d does a great jjob of meetin ng constraintss while also m maximizing the economic vvalue e developmen nt through their creative m mix of producct types.” ‐ M Meg Spriggs, A Avalon Bay of the  “High hest and best use absolute ely requires a density increease” ‐ Peter Solar, Equity Residential  “Go B Big!” ‐ Carl Sh hannon, Tishm man Speyer co ommenting oon density strrategy II. EXCER RPTS FROM TTHE BALBOA A AREA PLA AN SUPPORTTING OUR DENSI TY PROPOSA AL: The follow wing excerptss from the approved Balbo oa Park Area PPlan speak dirrectly to our tthesis of residentiaal density for our site and w will form the basis of our ccampaign forr an amendmeent to the Areea Plan: OBJECT TIVE 4.4 CONSIDER HOUSIN NG AS A PR RIMARY CO OMPONENT T TO ANY DE EVELOPME ENT ON TH HE RESERV VOIR. The Balbo oa Reservoir rrepresents on ne of the large est remainingg undevelopeed sites in San n Francisco an nd currently forms an unp pleasant void in the neighb borhood. Devveloping houssing on this site would help p fill this void in two ways. First, housingg here would add more peeople to the aarea; enlivening the commercial district and increasing rridership leve els on the neaarby public traansportation services. Seccond, ment would fill the void be etween the coommercial disstrict and thee surroundingg new houssing developm neighborh hoods, enticin ng residents tto walk to the e commercial district and u use alternativve modes of transportation. POLICY 1.3.2 Develop the t west basin n of the reserrvoir the grea atest benefit of the city as a whole as weell as for the surround ding neighborrhoods.

If the PUC C should deciide that the west w basin is not needed forr water storagge, it should consider faciliitating the develo opment of a mixed-use m residential neigh hborhood on ppart of the sitte to address tthe city-wide demand fo or housing. POLICY 4.1.1 Housing, supported byy a modest am mount of neig ghborhood-orriented comm mercial establlishments, sh hould form the backbone b of all new devellopment in th he plan area. Ocean Av venue and San n Jose Avenue present opp portunities forr infill housinng while the trransit station area and the reeservoir area provide p opporrtunities for laarger housingg developmennts. D. “DOW WNSIDE SCE NARIO” Bearing in n mind the significant s en ntitlement rissk related to our proposeed development, the Cal team additionally considered d the “downsside” scenario o of failing to gain supportt from the Bo oard of Supervisors for a plan n amendmentt. Under thiss scenario, a d developer woould be restriicted to the 5 500 unit maximum outlined in the Balboaa Park Station n Area Plan and approved EIR. In consiideration of tthis possibilityy, our recommended processs uses this do ownside scenario to calcullate the basee land value fo or the purposses of the exclusive negotiatting agreeme ent with a “d density bonuss” land valuee calculation depending o on the ultimate n number of un nit the develo oper is able to o entitle (see RFQ and RFPP Process Secction for additional detail). Under the e 500‐unit maximum density scenario,, multifamily housing provides the higghest residual land value. Th his conclusion n is based mainly on the large appetitte for rental product in SSan Francisco from both the rrenter and invvestor perspe ectives. See FFinancial Sum mmary section n for more deetail Should a master developer fail to o obtain entitlements for deensity exceeding 500 unitss, Cal recomm mends constructing the multiifamily building on the so outheast porttion of the site, behind Avvalon Bay’s O Ocean Avenue project. This p positioning haas the advanttage of puttinng residents cclose to the aamenities of O Ocean a is nearly at‐grade, saving significaant infrastruccture costs. Building co onfiguration w would Avenue and remain th he same.

6. MARKET O PPORTUNITTY ANALYSI S As part off our work, C Cal completed d a strategic m market oppo rtunity and p programming analysis to rreflect current su upply and de emand factorrs, positioningg metrics, annd market ch hallenges and d opportunitiees for the Balboa Reservoir site (the “Site””) located in SSan Franciscoo, CA. The following memorandum preesents a summarry of Cal’s mo ost significant findings and d conclusionss. The full eexhibit packagge provides d details of the anaalyses and can n be found in n Appendix A.

A. LOCA ATIONAL CO ONTEXT AND D MARKET A AREA DEFINIITIONS The Balbo oa Reservoir is located in the City of San n Francisco a nd boasts preemier access to transit witth the Balboa Paark BART Station, MUNI and a bus liness, and Intersttate 280 all located within a half milee. In addition, the site’s clo ose proximity to Interstate e 280 offers ddesirable sign nage opportu unities to pottential residents.. The Ocean n Avenue retaail corridor offfers ease of aaccess to sho opping and seervices, includ ding a newly con nstructed Wh hole Foods maarket adjacen nt to the site.

A commu uting pattern ns analysis was w performed to identiify where th he majority of local resiidents commute e for work. Baased on data from the 200 09 Census, tw wo‐thirds of all residents in n the Subject Site’s zip code ccommute to e either San Francisco or No orth San Matteo County. Due to the siite’s superb aaccess to multiple public tran nsit options and Interstate e 280, the sitee is well posittioned to attrract future reenters or homeo owners emplo oyed in eitherr San Franciscco or the Peniinsula.

Cal define es the Site’s residential Primary P Markket Area (“PM MA”), the areea from whicch the majorrity of demand is expected to o emanate, ass San Franciscco and San M Mateo countiees. The residential Compeetitive Market Area (“CMA”), the area in w which the site is expectedd to competee on a more o or less equal basis, includes SSan Francisco o and north Saan Mateo County. Due too the site’s location in a prrimarily residential market, C Cal has conce entrated on aa tighter Core e Commerciall Market Area to evaluatee potential m market opportunity for comm mercial producct types at th he site. Thiss includes evaaluation of a one mile and half us from the site. mile radiu B. MACR RO‐ECONOM MIC CONTEX XT The Subje ect Site is located within the nine‐co ounty San Fraancisco Bay A Area, consistting of 7.2 m million people an nd more than n 2.5 million households. The San Fra ncisco Bay Area is known for having o one of the most diverse economies in the nation, which h has enabledd it to be onee of earliest to begin a reccovery Mateo Countiies have provven to from the recent recesssion. Within the Bay Areaa, San Francissco and San M be the most m resilient.. After expe eriencing nearly 7% emplooyment loss from 2008 tthrough 2010 0, the

economy stabilized in 2011 with 0..4% job grow wth. Looking aahead, emplo oyment is pro ojected to grow at an averagge rate of mo ore than 2% ffrom 2011‐20 016, which reepresents onee of the stron ngest employyment projection ns in the nation. The Bay Area is proje ected to reco ver all jobs lo ost in the reccent cycle by 2014. Key secto ors behind th his growth incclude professsional and buusiness servicces (includingg the high grrowth technologgy sector), education and h health service es, and leisuree and hospitaality. Annual Emp ployment Trends ‐ Primary Markket Area

2 2015

2016

Ann. Growth h 11‐'1 16 ' 08‐'10 % #

219.0 2 1 105.3 1 125.2 28.8 1 126.3 37.0 77.7 22.8 74.8 36.0 35.9 39.9 0.2

223.0 107.2 127.1 29.2 127.5 36.6 78.7 22.9 75.0 36.2 36.1 40.2 0.2

‐2.5% ‐0.1% ‐1.7% ‐ ‐15.3% ‐1.5% ‐6.5% ‐6.3% ‐5.8% ‐4.6% ‐2.2% ‐4.4% ‐2.7% 9.7%

8 906.4 928.9 9 940.1 894.3 842.9 835.2 838.4 851.7 875.3 3.3 13.3 23.6 31.1 22.5 11.2 9.2 ‐51.4 ‐7.7 2 1.2% 1.0% ‐5.7% ‐0.9% 0.4% 1.6% 2.8% 3.6% 2.5%

‐3.4%

2008

2009

nt (000s) Annual Employmen 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

San Francissco and San Matteo County Profession nal & Business SServices 190.9 Education n & Health Servicces 91.6 Leisure & Hospitality 113.9 Construction 36.7 Governmeent 125.1 Manufactu uring 40.2 Financial A Activities 78.9 Wholesalee Trade 24.2 Retail Trad de 80.1 35.5 Other Servi ces c (except Publ i c Admi n.) 38.3 Transportatio on, Warehousing, & U Utilities Informatio on 38.7 Natural Reesources & Mini ng 0.2

179.9 91.6 109.1 28.9 121.7 36.0 71.7 22.1 74.4 34.1 36.0 37.3 0.2

181.4 186.2 191.7 200.3 91.4 92.4 94.3 97.5 109.9 111.6 113.6 117.6 26.4 25.2 25.6 26.7 121.4 120.5 120.2 121.5 35.2 35.6 36.3 36.7 69.3 68.3 69.4 72.0 21.5 21.8 22.2 22.3 72.9 71.5 71.9 72.9 33.9 33.5 33.8 34.3 35.0 34.8 34.9 34.8 36.6 36.9 37.5 38.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Employmen nt Industry

Total Non‐Farm (000) nge (000) Y/Y Chan % Chang ge

Cumulativee Loss: ‐6.6%

211.3 102.0 122.1 28.0 124.0 37.1 75.4 22.5 74.0 35.3 35.2 39.3 0.2

3.7% 3.0% 2.6% 3.0% 1.1% 0.5% 2.9% 1.1% 1.0% 1.6% 0.8% 1.7% 1.6%

36.9 14.8 15.6 4.0 7.0 0.9 10.4 1.2 3.5 2.7 1.3 3.3 0.0

2.3% 101.6

In additio on to the stro ong employm ment outlookk, the Bay Arrea household pected to gro ow at d base is exp annual rate of 0.9% du uring the nextt five years, aadding appro ximately 1155K householdss during that time. Similarly, the PMA and d CMA are pro ojected to gro ow at annual rate of appro oximately 1% %. Residents w within he site earn m more than 10 0% than the aaverage CMA household. Households in the a one‐mile radius of th or rental prooduct due to the high cossts associated d with CMA are known to haave a strong preference fo owning in the marke et. Howeve er, the perce ent own verrsus rent wiithin one mile of the SSite is disproporrtionally high at 63%. This likely indicattes a strong nneed for rentaal product in tthe area.

Key Demo ographics Subject Site: Market Arrea General In nformation Populatio on ('11) Househo olds ('11) % of PM MA/Bay Area Annual H HH Growth Ratee ('11‐'16) Average Annual House holds Added % of PM MA/Bay Area Median H HH Income ('11 1) Above/B /Below PMA/Ba ay Area Annual In ncome Growth Rate ('11‐'16) Owner Housing % Ownerr

1 Mile Radius

CMA: & North SM SF & C County

60,76 68 18,77 77 3% / 1% 1 0.5% % 86 2% / 0% 0 $80,5 544 7% / 8% 8 0.5% %

1,,081,817 4 424,590 71% % / 17% 1.1% 4,485 85% % / 20% $ $70,585 ‐6% % / ‐5% 0.5%

63% %

42%

PMA: S SF & San Mateo o Counties 1,550,764 598,458 100% / 23% 0.9% 5,267 100% / 23% $75,356 ‐‐ / 1% 0.5% 48%

9‐County Bay Area 7,200,29 91 2,571,50 04 100% 0.9% 22,580 0 100% $74,51 11 100% 0.5% 57%

Due to th he relative strength of the e job markett, highly desi rable location, and manaageable amou unt of new delivveries over the last few yeaars, San Francisco has onee of the healthiest real esttate markets in the country. The multi‐ffamily sectorr has alreadyy experienceed rapid grow wth over th he last two yyears, oximity to em mployment coores. The lim mited amount of remainingg new specificallly in urban arreas with pro home sup pply and minimal foreclo osure activityy has also ssituated San Francisco as one of thee top residentiaal markets in n the nation,, positioning it to outpacce the national housing recovery. TThis is consistent with prior real estate cycles c where the County of San Franccisco has beeen one of the last e of the first m markets to re ecover. The B Bay Area’s commercial maarkets have already markets to fall and one begun to recover from m the turbulent real estate e cycle as aveerage lease rrates and occcupancies con ntinue wntown San Francisco, SSOMA and SSilicon Valley have to rise. Core employyment areas such as dow d high attracted significant investment acttivity for officce product duue to the large surges in leease rates and he continued growth in em mployment, tthe San Franccisco Bay Area has become one demand. Driven by th ost sought after real estate e markets in the nation. of the mo C. SUPP PLY‐DEMAN D DYNAMIC CS – POTENTTIAL PRODU UCT TYPES For each p potential product type, Caal performed an in‐depth m market analyssis to determ mine optimal m mix of uses on the Site. Thiss process included analyzing historical market trend ds, current co ompetitive su upply, pply pipeline,, demand pro ojections, site positioning aand absorptio on potential. future sup I. APARTTMENT MAR RKET Apartmen nt market ren nts in the CM MA have enjoyyed dramaticc expansion o over the last two years with an average rrent increase of over 10% since 2010. Occupancy leevels have also continued d to improve to an overall raate north of 95%. A Q4 2011 survey of 28 compparable comm munities acro oss the CMA show average b base rents of nearly $2,400 0 per month (or $2.93 pe r square foott) and an aveerage occupan ncy of 95%. In U Urban San Fraancisco, whicch includes th he SOMA andd Mission Bayy Neighborho oods, averagee base 22

rents have reached $2 2,918 per mo onth (or $3.82 2 per square foot) with o occupancy of 96%. The Su ubject Site’s besst comparable is Avalon Ocean Avenu ue, which jusst began preeleasing in M March 2012 aand is located ad djacent to the site. Base rents at Avalon Ocean Avvenue average $3,000 perr month ($3.3 32 per square foot). The table e below summ marizes curre ent statistics ffrom comparables in San FFrancisco: Key Apartm ment Comparable es ‐ Competitive e Market Area

Project

Prop perty Man nager

West San FFrancisco Presidio LLandmark (in lease‐up) Avalon Su unset Towers Avalon Occean Avenue (in lease‐up) Avalon at Diamond Heigh hts

Foreest City AvallonBay AvallonBay AvallonBay

Year Built/ Renovated

1932 2/2010 1961/1998 2 2012 1972/Ongoing

Total/Weighted Average (3): Urban San Francisco Carmel Ri ncon The Param mount Edgewateer SOMA Ressidences Avalon Mission Bay III Argenta Archstonee South Market Avalon at Mission Bay North Strata at M Mission Bay

Carm mel Relaated Sarees Regis SOM MA Res AvallonBay Riveerstone Arch hstone AvallonBay UHG G

1989 1 2 2001 2 2007 2 2000 2 2009 2 2008 1989/Ongoing 2 2004 2 2009

Un nit Sizze

Rent Maxx Base Price PSF Price PSF

Total Units

Occ. Rate

161 243 173 154

71% 95% NA 95%

865 8 7 750 8 899 8 858

$3,340 2,593 2,986 2,677

$3.86 $3,865 $ 3.46 2,688 3.32 3,034 3.12 2,680

$4.47 3.59 3.37 3.12

731

88%

8 833

$2,868

$ $3.44 $3,028

$3.63

320 486 193 278 260 179 410 565 192

89% 100% 96% 96% 97% 99% 93% 97% 97%

559 5 7 725 8 808 4 490 8 803 8 800 7 788 1,0 019 8 883

$3,406 3,220 3,308 1,962 3,190 3,146 2,977 3,761 3,174

$6.09 $3,406 $ 4.44 3,615 4.09 4,971 4.00 2,121 3.97 3,372 3.93 3,309 3.78 3,304 3.69 4,061 3.60 3,262

$6.09 4.98 6.15 4.33 4.20 4.14 4.19 3.99 3.69

Cal also p performed an in‐depth amenity profile study to bettter understan nd the requirred finish leveel and amenitiess needed at the Site. In o order to comp pete at the toop of the market, the Sitee will need to o offer amenitiess in‐line with those of Avallon Bay Comm munities in W West and Urbaan San Francisco. This inccludes a fitness center, courtyard/BBQ space, s 9 foo ot ceilings, aand upgraded d finishes in n the kitchen n and ms. See below w for a detaile ed amenity profile study oof key comparables: bathroom

Due to a lack of available land, th he market haas also been historically undersupplieed with attraactive, newly‐con nstructed ren ntal housing. However, due d to the sttrong rent growth over tthe last two years coupled with w strong employment e projections, developers have responded with approximately 9,100 units of p planned rentaal product forr the market. Based on coonversations with the plan nning and bu uilding departme ents, Cal proje ects annual n new apartment deliveries in the CMA tto average 1,100 units per year from 2012 2 through 201 16. households by income levels, Cal also assessed demand levels by categoriizing new annd existing h affordabillity ratios, turrnover and propensity to rent. In all, CCal projects in ncome qualiffied demand in the CMA overr the next five e years to ave erage 1,609 new apartmennt units per year for apartm $1,400 ments over $ per montth. These co onditions ind dicate that market m dema nd greatly eexceeds curreent and projjected supply. Given G the lacck of recent apartment a de eliveries and high demand, the Site can capture itts fair share of d demand. The e CMA apartm ment market is also an attrractive real eestate investm ment environment. While ove erall househo old growth is moderate att 1.1% annua lly, the markket benefits frrom high inco omes, strong economic drive ers, proximityy to San Francisco and Pe ninsula emplloyment nodees and an in‐‐place hort ideally‐suited to resid ding in a mixe ed‐use enviro nment. renter coh II. FOR‐SSALE RESIDEENTIAL MAR RKET As a result of the limite ed land availaability, stringe ent permittin g process, an nd highly desirable location n, San Francisco and San Maateo countiess’ residential housing maarket has outtperformed tthe Bay Areaa as a mes in the CM MA are downn 64% from th he 2008 new w home sales peak, whole. 2011 sales of 537 new hom w the 10 year average. However, H it i s important to note thatt many new home and nearlly 50% below closings since 2006 in SSan Francisco o, specifically in high‐rise ccondominium m projects, aree not reporteed and n accurately reflect totaal market activity. In addition, the laack of thus the overall sales total does not deliveriess over the lastt three years has contribu uted to the deepressed salees total but enabled the m market to recover at a faster rate. LTM median new home price off $615,000 is up 8% year o over year and d only w the 2006 n new home price peak of $686,000. Thee resale markket has shown n signs of reccovery 10% below with volume up 14% from 2008. Th he CMA’s median resale pprice of $578,000 has conttinued to softten as omy works itss way back fro om the recent downturn. the econo

Historical New Home Median Price e – Competitive and Primaary Market A Areas

Due to cu urrent financing, constructtion and reve enue challengges, developeers and builders have gen nerally ceased de elivering new w housing pro oduct to the m market. In adddition, many properties have reposittioned as rental, changed price positioning, or halted ssales due to the difficult market conditions. As exxisting n in active CM MA projects, ccurrent comp parables averrage 3 stock sellss out (approxximately 861 units remain sales per month), ove erall supply in n the markett – especiallyy at affordab ble price poin nts under $70 00K – dwindles. Available product in urrban San Francisco is cur rently priced d from $600‐$ $1,100 per square foot. New w home comm munities in th he Bayview an nd Candlesticck Cove neigh hborhoods aree priced in th he low to mid $3 300 per squaare foot. The e Subject Site’s best com mparable conssists of resale product in n local neighborh hoods. Last twelve montth resales in the surroundding neighborrhoods of Westwood Parrk and Sunnyside e average $52 25‐550 per sq quare foot.

Last Twelve Months R Resales By Ne eighborhood d d Resale Neighborhood

S Sales

Price

Averaage Size PSF

od Park Westwoo Sunnysid de Mission TTerrace Inglesidee Total/Ave erage:

13 51 62 37 1 163

$793,583 $652,382 $543,527 $426,042 $570,861

1,517 1,194 1,320 1,175 1,263

$523 $546 $412 $363 $452

Yr. Built 1922 1937 1932 1926 1931

New hom me demand em manating from the PMA iss forecasted at 2,149 unitts annually fo or homes pricced at or above $490K. Cal p projects the C CMA to captu ure nearly 80% % of this dem mand, repressenting 1,695 units months, follow wed by 12 months per year. The 2011 saales rate is exxpected to continue over tthe next 12 m ery rate of ap pproximately 1,100 units,, before returning to dem mographic demand at a near term recove 695 units. Du ue to the urban fringe locaation in southhern San Fran ncisco, buyerss projected fo or the rate of 1,6 communitty in early ph hases include young singles and coupless looking for attached pro oduct at entryy level price poin nts. The majo ority of these e buyers will b be current rennters in San FFrancisco. Th hese buyers w will be 26

interested d in benefitting from the transit orien nted nature oof the site an nd desirability of new pro oduct. Given its location towaards the soutthern end of SSan Franciscoo, near SF Pen ninsula emplo oyment nodees, Cal expects sttrong interest from split ccommuters. The Site is pooised to meeet the markett when it is accutely undersupplied, offering product afffordable to a wide range oof CMA buyers. III. STUD DENT HOUSI NG MARKETT oth have a higgh demand fo or student ho ousing. Two large The greatter San Francisco and locaal markets bo colleges aare located w within the Site e’s local area that will conntinue to drive demand fo or student housing. City Colle ege of San Francisco is loccated directlyy adjacent too the Site and serves oveer 30,000 students daily, including 10,000 0 full‐time stu udents. CCSFF does not offfer any studeent housing, fforcing students to e options acro oss the city. SSan Franciscoo State Univerrsity is located less than 2 miles search forr market‐rate west of th he Site and caan be reached d in less than 20 minutes. SFSU has a ttotal enrollment of over 2 29,000 students, of which only 10% live in n university p provided houusing units. This leaves aa huge segmeent of demand unme et by the locaal colleges. housing d

Student H Housing Dem mand Potential

Target SSegments (in n order)

Off‐ Campus Demand

Internaational Students @ CCSF Domesttic Students @ @ CCSF Underggraduates at SSFSU Graduaates at SFSU

1,400 7,348 18,244 2,338

Total Sttudent Housing Demand

27,930

Imm mediate Area Capture # %

% Prefer Managed Apts (3)

Potential P Site Demand

1,260 6,613 1,824 234

90% 50% 50% 50%

1,134 3,307 912 117

90% 90% 10% 10%

8,672

5,470

Comparab bles for stude ent housing include i SFSU owned houssing units, market rate reental commun nities, and Craiggslist listings. Students fre equently share rooms to reduce cost,, which is typ pical for univversity provided housing. Based on analyssis of currentt listings in th e area, rental rates range from $600‐$ $1,200 per bed d depending on location and d housing typ pe. Because students aree willing to sh hare rooms to o save money, ow wners of thesse double occcupancy unitss often garne r more than iif it was singlee occupancy. Both students and owner achieve their goals in this arrangementt. It is also im mportant to note that demand for studen nt housing pe eaks during the spring and d summer moonths when sstudents begiin planning fo or the following school year. CE MARKET IV. OFFIC office productt exists within n the Subjectt Site’s local aarea. Only 40 0 office properties A limited amount of o ombined total of 276K squ uare feet are e located withhin a one miile radius of the Site. Avverage with a co lease rate es, based on minimal leasing activity, rrebounded byy 13% in 20111 to approximately $32.5 50 per square foot per year o on a full service gross lease e after a 14% % drop in 20110. Due to the limited avaailable 27

supply, vaacancy has alsso remained low in the area. Howeveer, the area is not known aas a nexus of office activity an nd has troublle competing with downto own San Franncisco and thee southern Peeninsula due to its location in‐between th he two core o office nodes. The bulk oof the existingg office supp ply in the area was built pre‐1960 and the ere is currentlly no Class A office space aand only six b buildings thatt qualify as Class B. Active listtings within a one mile rad dius range from $21‐$36 peer square foo ot per year on n a gross leasee. V. RETAI L MARKET Approxim mately 500K s.f. s of retail space s exists within a halff mile radiuss of the site. The bulk o of this product iss located alon ng Ocean Ave enue. The Occean Avenue retail corrido or has been taargeted as an n area of emphaasis for revitaalization with hin the local community.. The Balbo oa Park Specific plan hop pes to enliven th his retail thro ough the devvelopment off the surrounnding commu unity. Vacan ncy has moree than doubled ffrom the 2008 8 low of 3.2% %, but remains manageabl e at its current level of 8.7 7%. Average rents in the are ea stabilized during 2011 at $27.05 pe er square foott per year on n a triple nett lease but arre still down 11% % from their 2 2008 peak. The area is not known n as a regionaal draw for re etail shoppin g but instead d serves as a primary source of neighborh hood serving retail for the e local residents. Only a handful of neew product h has been delivered since the 1980s, includ ding a new W Whole Foods market locatted adjacent to the Site. The area laccks an ed regional retail center anchored a by large‐scale ttenants, leavving it unablee to competee with establishe other nod des in San Frrancisco. Re ents at active ely listed prooperties in th he area rangee from $24‐3 30 per square foot per year on a triple net lease. D. BUYE R/RENTER P PROFILES AN ND SEGMEN NTATION Based on a deep analysis of buyer profiles, pssychographicss and lifestyle segmentation of houseeholds enters and buuyers at the site are will laargely be refleective living in the Competitive Market Arrea, target re of the Urban Barbell, which includes young singles and cou ples as well as empty nesters and rettirees. c in the CMA, accou unting for 466% of all hou useholds, is YYoung Singles and The mostt prevalent cohort Couples. Within this segment, two lifestyle cohorts account for 80% of households ‐ YYoung Digerati and n Mix. Thesse household d types consiist of progre ssive, ethnicaally diverse, trendy individuals Bohemian earning upper‐mid to upper levels of income. This will be aa key target for both renttal and entryy level for‐sale p product at the e Site. The ssecond target cohort at thhe Site is Empty Nesters aand Retirees.. This cohort represents 13% % of the CMA.. The subjectt site is likely to attract old der singles an nd couples that are looking to o downsize after a their ch hildren have moved out oof the home but want to o stay close tto the entertainment that Saan Francisco offers. In ad ddition to theese targets, tthe site is alsso likely to aattract milies with prre‐school age ed children, sp pecifically forr for‐sale prod duct. See thee chart below w for a starter fam breakdow wn of househo olds by lifestyyle class in the e Competitivee Market Areea:

Within th his household distributio on, Cal identtified target buyer/renteer profiles fo or each pottential residentiaal product typ pe at the Site.. Below pleasse find a brieff description of target custtomers: Multifamily: M M Mid‐twentiess ‐ early thirties professionnal couple, on ne teaches in San Franciscco and one works at aa technology company on the Peninsul a. They like tthe BART acccess to the citty and th he easy comm mute to the P Peninsula. W When they waant to go out to the Missio on for the evvening th hey just jump p on MUNI or BART.

En ntry Level For‐Sale F Hou using: Late thirties ‐ eaarly forties young familiies who wan nt an "aaffordable" place p to own in the city where w they ccan enjoy thee same comm muting beneffits as multifamily m cu ustomers but have the added benefit oof parks and family orien nted commun nity of th he for‐sale ne eighborhood.

Sttudent Housiing: Late teens ‐ early twe enties internaational studen nts coming to o take two yeears of En nglish and college prep courses at CCSFF before enteering the UC ssystem.

E. DEVE LOPMENT O OPPORTUNITTIES AND SIITE POSITIO ONING The follow wing represen nts our produ uct specific op pportunity meetrics and reccommendatio ons: I. APARTTMENTS For several reasons, Cal sees re ental apartm ments as a key compon nent of the Balboa Reseervoir ment. The cu urrent economics of aparrtment devellopment are very favorab ble and theree is a developm strong de emand for ren ntal product iin the marketplace. Evenn with a rush h of new project applicatio ons in the pipeline, demand ffor new aparrtments is still projected too outpace supply over thee next five yeears in the CMA by an averagge of nearly 5 500 units perr year. In adddition, the eaarly delivery of apartmentts will jump starrt activity on site, acceleraating the creaation of a vibbrant residen ntial commun nity with streeet‐life and active ely used public amenities. The Site is i expected to compete in n the middle of the CMA competitive set, but at tthe top of itss local area. The e property offers great acccess and visib bility due to iits close proxximity to I‐280 0, BART and MUNI lines. Ho owever, the Site’s S location n is less desiirable than U Urban San Frrancisco neigh hborhoods as it is farther from high‐end d desirable re etail, entertainment and sservice nodees. Cal positio oned the Sitee well below reccently built communities in SOMA and d Mission Bayy due to theiir superior lo ocation and similar quality, an nd above rental communitties in North San Mateo C ounty. The SSite’s best com mparable is A Avalon Ocean Avvenue, which opened in M March 2012 aand is locatedd adjacent to the Site. P Projected rentts are positioned d at a slight discount (3‐‐4%) to Avalo on Ocean Avvenue due to o their directt access to O Ocean Avenue and the inclusiion of Whole Foods is locaated in the buuilding. Cal forecaasts a supporttable average e rental rate aat the Site off $2,935 per m month or $3.3 36 per squaree foot for the avverage 874 sq quare foot apartment. On nce stabilized,, occupancy is expected to o reach 95%. Cal’s 30

apartmen nt positioningg has been reviewed and is supported bby Meg Spriggs of Avalon Bay, Peter So olar of Equity Residential, Alex Waterbury of Mill Creekk Residential aand John Waayland of BRE Properties among B is a grraphical repre esentation off the Site’s reecommended d product prrogram positiioning others. Below relative to o competitive e rental comm munities:

II. FOR‐SSALE RESIDEENTIAL As demon nstrated in eaarlier sectionss of this text, Cal has identtified the opp portunity for eentry level fo or‐sale housing p product at the e site. Given n the dynamiccs of the currrent market eenvironment and the natu ure of the Site’ss location, we e see the maajority of demand for fo r‐sale producct focused to owards entryy‐level townhom mes. These product types w will appeal mostly to younnger singles, ccouples and ssmall families (with young children) that our attracted tto the proxim mity to transpoortation and entertainment in San Fran ncisco and afford dable price po oints. Based on the dearth off new home p product in the e market, thee Site’s best ccomparable consist of resaales in hborhoods. Specifically, S the t Site is moost likely to ccompete agaainst homes iin the the surrounding neigh S neighborhoods. These hom mes are prim marily comprised of 1920’’s and Westwood Park and Sunnyside borhood is sliightly more d dense, 30’s built small lot dettached and atttached product. The Inggleside neighb s yardss and home sizes. s The Westwood W Pa rk neighborh hood consistss of 680 bunggalow offering smaller style hom mes. Westwo ood Park’s last twelve mo onths averagee resale pricee is $798K or $523 per square foot. Sun nnyside’s lastt twelve mon nths average resale price is $652K or $$546 per squ uare foot. Caal has 31

positioned d townhomes at the Site sslightly below w the Sunnysiide neighborh hood, due the attractiveness of new prod duct and gree en space, and d at a 12% discount to Weestwood Park resales duee to the largeer lots and desiraability of singgle family hom mes. Cal projeccts an averagge home sale price at the Site of $677KK (inclusive o of average preemiums/upgrrades) or $484 p per square foo ot for the ave erage 1,400 ssquare foot toownhome. B Base pricing iss positioned $ $628K or $448 p per square foo ot. Townhom me pricing has been review wed and is su upported by D David Best off Shea Homes, R Rick Holliday o of Holliday D Development and Jamie C hoy of Signatture Develop pment. Pleasse see below forr a schematic detailing projected home prices at the Site and seleected comparrables:

III. STUD DENT HOUSI NG Due the Site’s S location n adjacent to o CCSF and within w 20 minnutes of SFSU U, unique lifeestyle and product design, and cost efficciency, student housing units u will garrner strong d demand in tthe market. Key comparab bles include managed m apaartments builldings and lo cal grey marrket listings. Student unitts will come fully furnished and a will offer layouts and d amenities ttargeted tow wards studentt renters. U Unmet duct near ou ur Site excee eds 5,000 unnits per yearr, representing a rare m market demand for this prod a very stronng due to sttudent’s willingness for double opportunity. In addittion, project economics are ow finish leve el standards, w which lead too strong per ssquare foot reents. occupancy living and lo

Proposed d student hou using (Sacram mento State U University)

The Cal te eam forecasts stabilized o occupancy of 95%+ at the Site with aveerage rents aat $831 per m month per stude ent. Standard d double occupancy unitss are positionned at a signiificant discou unt to the avverage CMA stud dio price of $2,285. $ Avallon Ocean Avvenue’s stud io units are currently priced at $2,02 25 per month. SStandard unitts at the Site are listed at $850 per stuudent ($1,7000 per unit), reepresenting aa 15% discount to Avalon Occean Avenue. Student “ssuites” will ooffer a 2 bedroom layout designed forr four students. These unitss are position ned at a 15% % discount to 2B units in tthe CMA and d at Avalon O Ocean Avenue, w with rents of $775 per stu udent ($3,100 0 per unit). Cal’s student housing positioning has been reviewed and is suppo orted by Patrick Kennedy of Panaromicc Interests, M Meg Spriggs o of Avalon Bayy, Alex Waterburry of Mill Cree ek Residential and Peter So olar of Equityy Residential. IV. RETA IL Given the e dynamics off the site and its removed location from m the bulk of new commercial activity iin San Francisco,, the majoritty of the rettail opportun nity is limitedd to neighbo orhood serving product ttypes. Potential retail rents aat the Site are e positioned sslightly below w average ren nts for producct located witthin a ue to the lackk of street fro ontage. Averrage rents at the Site are p projected to range half‐mile of the site du 00‐$2.25 per ssquare foot p per month on n a triple net llease. This reepresents a ssignificant discount from $2.0 to retail w with frontage on Ocean Avvenue, which leases betweeen $2.50‐$3.00 per squaree foot per mo onth.

V. OFFIC CE Cal sees limited opporrtunity to devvelop office space on site. The Site’s u urban core wiill support miinimal based office space. Due to this lack of o demand, rrents at the SSite are posittioned in‐linee with resident‐b average rates in a one e mile radius. Cal expects average rentts at the Site to range from $2.25‐$2.7 75 per h on a gross le ease. square foot per month F. HIGHEEST AND BEEST USE ANA ALYSIS erein, Cal dettermined thee highest and best use to consist of a m mix of Based on the analysis presented he ptions. By integrating mu ultiple residenntial housingg types, the ccommunity w will be residentiaal housing op able to maximize its re evenue and ab bsorption pottential. In order identify the e optimum market drive en land use mix for th he property given its cu urrent opportunities and consstraints, Cal: 1. Id dentified cand didate produ uct types; 2. Po ositioned ca andidate pro oduct types based on p performance metrics at comparabless and projected abso orption potential; see the e table below w for a summ mary of strateegic product menu options:

Westwood d Terrace ‐ Strateggic Product Menu u Approx Unit Use Type Density/ Bed‐ Product TType rooms FA AR Mix

Unit Size

Recomm mended Positioniing Average Base Avg. Rent/Price PSSF Prem. R Rent/Price PSSF

An nnual Occup‐ Ab bsorp‐ ancy t tion

For‐Rent R Residential 4s Stick O Over Podium

77.0

10% Studio 48% 1B 42% 2B 100%

515 750 1,100 874

50% 2B 50% 3B 100%

1,250 1,550 1,400

$1,975 $3.83 2,550 3.40 3,400 3.09 $2,850 $3.26

$2,030 2,630 3,500 $2,935

$3..94 3..51 3..18 $3..36

95%

270

$640,000 715,000 $677,500

$5 512 4 461 $4 484

‐

For‐Sale Re esidential Row Townhomes

21.0

$593,000 662,000 $627,500

$4 474 4 427 $4 448

8% (2)

ousing Student Ho 3s Stick O Over Podium

1 175.0 75% Standard 25% Suite 100%

400 800 500

Per Unit # Beds $1,700 $4.25 2 3,100 3.88 4 $2,050 $4.10

Per Student P $850 * alll units come furnisshed 775 $831 95% 1,500

Retail (1) Resident Serving Ground Floor

0.25

$2.00 /psf/mo 2.25 Totaal/Average: $2.13

95%

‐

$2.25 /psf/mo 2.75 Totaal/Average: $2.50

92%

‐

General Offfice (1) Mid‐rise O Office

0.50

(1) Recomm mended retail ren nts represent a triple net lease and d recommended office rents repreesent a modified gross lease type (2) Includees 3% lot premium m and 5% options//upgrades

Cal also calcu ulated afford dable housingg rents and home pricees associated d with the aabove re esidential pro oduct: Affordablle Housing Re ent/Home Pricce Derivation San Franccisco County A Average Mediian Income Le evels (2012)* % AMI Level

1 Person $72,100 $64,900 $43,250

100% 90% 60%

2 Person $82,400 $74,150 $49,450

3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Pe erson 111,250 $11 19,500 $92,700 $103,000 $1 $83,450 $92,700 $1 100,150 $10 07,550 $ $7 71,700 $55,600 $61,800 $66,750

ousing (60% A AMI)* Rental Ho 1BR Studio 1.0 Person 1.5 Person $46,350 $43,250 30% 30% $13,905 $12,975

Eligiblee Income % Income/Housing Supportable Housin ng Burden Month hly Rent + Utiliities Less Uttilities Month hly Rent Site Mix

$1,081 $32 $1,049 10%

2BR 3 Person * $55,600 30% * $16,680

$1,159 $43 $1,116 48%

$1,390 $55 $1,335 42%

$1,201 aveerage monthlyy rent

Housing (90% AMI)* For‐Sale H 2BR 3 Person $83,450 33% $27,539

Eligiblee Income % Income/Housing ng Burden Supportable Housin HOA Feees (Annual) Approxx. Tax Month hly Mortgage Actual Mortgage Down Payment Assu umption Home Price Site Mix

1.5% %

$2,400 $5,216 $1,660 $347,746 5.0% $366,000 50%

3BR 4 Person * $92,700 33% * $30,591 $2,400 $5,850 $1,862 $389,972 4% APR; 30 yyears 5.0% $410,500 $388,250 avverage home price 50%

* Per San Francisco Mayor's Office o of Housing

3. Analyzed A current land resiidual values for each can ndidate product type usin ng our positioning ra ationale and general indu ustry standard d cost metriccs in order to o determine w which products to elliminate. Th he per unit laand values ge enerated weere cross‐refeerenced and positioned in‐line with recent co w omparable lan nd trades (se ee Appendix A A).

Land Residual Potential ‐ In ncome Producingg Product Types Apartme ents 4 over 1 CHARACTERISTICS PRODUCT C Square Feeet Density/FA AR Parking Spaaces per Unit Structuree

Student Housing 3 sto ory

Offfice Mid d‐rise

874 90

500 175

1 0.25

1 0.5

0 0.85

0.00

0.001

0.002

INCOME Average Monthly Rental Inccome (15% Afforrdable) Income per Square Foot Potential G Gross Income perr Year Less Vaccancy Effective Re ental Revenue Other Reevenue % Effectiive Income Other Reve enue Total Reven nue

$2,,676 $3.06 $32,,112 5% $30,,506 6% $1,,938 $32,,444

$1,911 $3.82 $ $22,932 5% $ $21,785 0% $0 $ $21,785

EXPENSES Operatin ng Expenses % Re evenue Total Expen nses

31% $10,,058

NOI Cap Rate Capitalized d Value/Unit Sale es Price BUILDING C CONSTRUCTION COSTS Hard Costs Consttruction Costs/reentable square fo oot Total Dirrect Costs Parking C Costs Parki ng Structures $20,000 $ per spacee Total Parking Costs Total Hard C Costs Soft Costs Soft Costs % of Hard Costts Total Soft C Costs Financing C Costs Loan Draaw osts 65% of hard co Construcction Timing (Mo onths) 5.5% of loan draw Construcction Interest 1.0% of loan draw Loan Feee Total Finan ncing Costs Total Soft C Costs Builder Pro ofit Builder Retturn Total Costs LAND RESID DUAL ‐ Super Pad d Capitalized d Value/Unit Salees Price Total Costs Land Residual ‐ Super Pad % of Revvenue Per Acre e

PRELIMARY ANALYSIS ONLY – Residu uals show wn were used to eliminate potenttial pro oduct types and iidentify financially fea ay $30.00 $asible options. Final residuals ma $25.50 er. diff 7.5% 5%

$24.23 $ ‐ $0 $ $24.23

$27.75 ‐ $0 $27.75

31% $6,753

10% $2.42

25% $6.94

$22,,387

$ $15,032

$ $21.80

$20.81

5.50%

6.0%

8.0%

$407,,030

$2 250,532

$273

$260

$ $252 $220,,510

$249 $1 124,667

$180 $180

$275 $275

Incl Ab bove $0 $220,,510

$0 $0 $1 124,667

$20 $20 $200

$40 $40 $315

30% $66,,153

30% $37,400 $

30% $60

30% $95

$143,,332 18 $5,,912 1,,433 $7,,346 $73,,499

$81,033 $ 18 $3,343 810 $4,153 $ $41,553

$130 12 $3.58 $1.30 $4.88 $ $64.88

$205 18 $8.45 $2.05 $10.49 $ $104.99

10% $40,,703

10% $25,053 $

10% $27

10% $26

$334,,712

$1 191,273

$292

$446

$407,0 030 $334,7 712 $72,3 318 18% $6,508,5 596

$25 50,532 $19 91,273 $5 59,259 24% $10,37 70,371

$273 $292 ($20) ‐7% ($213,410)

$260 $446 ($186) ‐71% ($4,0 047,874)

Re etail Center

Land Resid dual Potential ‐‐ For‐Sale Town nhomes o Ratio

Product ‐ TH Market Raate Affordaable

GENERAL Net Den nsity (units/acre) Averagee Floorplan Squ uare Footage REVENUESS Averagee Base Home Prrice Averaage Lot Premium Averaage Options/Up pgrade Averagee Home Price Incen ntives/Concession to Buyer 50% of sales @ Brokeer Co‐op

20% of U Units 1,4 400

1,,400

21 1 1,400

$627,5 500 18,8 825 31,3 375

$388,,250

$580 0,468

3.0% % 5.0% % 3.0% % 3.0% %

$677,7 700 (20,3 331) (10,1 166)

Net Revvenues From Re esidential Saless NON‐FINA ANCING COSTS Hard Co osts/square foo ot Direcct Costs Optio ons and Upgrad des 75.0% % Total Construction C Costs Other Costs mon Area 1.5% % Comm Marketing and Saless 3.0% % G & A A 2.0% % Propeerty Taxes (speecial assesment district) 1.5% % Impact Fees/Permitts 3.7% % ontingency 1.0% % Othe r Soft Costs/Co 12.7% % Total Other Costs on‐Financing Co osts Total No FINANCING G COSTS Loan Draw (on Non‐‐Financing Costts) Loan Draw (on Land) Total Loan Draw nths 6 Mon Intereest Loan Fee Total Financing Costts

70.0% % 70.0% % 5.5% % 1.0% %

osts (Excluding Land) Total Co Total Co osts per Square Foot BUILDER PROFIT

12.0% %

FINISHED LLOT LAND RESID DUAL Reve nues ng Builder Profit) Total Costs (includin FINISHEED LOT PRICE As % of Average Hom me Price Per A Acre

Totaals

PRELIM MARY ANALYSIS O ONLY – Residuals shown w were used to elim minate potential product types and iden ntify financially feasib ble options. Final residuals may differ.

$647,2 200

$388,,250

$596 6,295

$1 140 $196,0 000 23,5 531 $219,5 531

$140 $ $196,,000 ‐ $196,,000

$214 4,905

$9,4 413 18,8 825 12,5 550 9,4 413 23,2 268 6,2 275 $79,7 743 $299,2 274

$79,,743 $275,,743

$79 9,743 $294 4,648

$209,4 492 180,5 598 $390,0 090 10,7 727 3,9 901 $14,6 628

$193,,020 40,,025 $233,,045 6,,409 2,,330 $8,,739 $0

$13 3,471

$313,9 902 $2 224

$284,,482 $ $203

$308 8,119

$75,3 300

$46,,590

$69 9,656

$647,2 200 389,2 202 $257,9 998

$388,,250 331,,072 $57,,178

$596 6,295 377 7,775 $218 8,520

38%

15%

38%

$5,504,5 536

$1,219,,928

$4,662 2,262

Elliminated infeasible pro oduct types at the site based valuee of land aand selected best performing prroduct types that would b be used to prrogram site in n manner thaat best maxim mized he revenue and absorptio on potential o of the Site. th I. RESIDU UAL CONCLU USIONS AND D ALLOCATIO ON RESULTSS

Given market realities and high con nstruction cossts, some of t he analyzed p product typess (retail and o office) c viab ble. These product typess were rapidlly eliminated d from the optimization m model are not currently described d above. Base ed on strong o opportunitiess to leverage proximity to the CCSF and d public transsit, Cal allocated the bulk of the acreage to o a variety off housing opt ions includingg student housing, multi‐ffamily wnhomes. B Based on thesse strong res idual values, and the abso orption projecctions rental, and for‐sale tow p delineated above e, Cal allocate ed these usees in way thaat maximized d the revenuee and of each product absorption potential of the Site. Se ee the chart b below for rec ommended ssite programm ming:

Westwo ood Terrace ‐ Product Proggram Summaary Product Type A Avg Unit Size Unit Count e Acreage

Unit Den nsity

Multi‐Faamily

874

5 452 5.9

Student Housing

500

2 178 483 2.7

Townhomes

5 117 5.5

1,400

For more e detail on th he methodolo ogy and reassoning behindd the propossed product program, reffer to Section 8 – Cal’s Propo osed Development Concep pt. 7. COMMUNI TY OUTREA ACH STRATE GY A. STRA ATEGY FOR COMMUNITTY OUTREACCH – AVALO ON BAY MOD DEL In order tto achieve approvals for development d densities beyyond the 500 residential u units contemp plated in the Baalboa Park Sttation Area Plan, P it is crittical that thee SFPUC worrk closely witth an experieenced Master Developer to m manage comm munications w with both thee City and the local comm munity. In speeaking P Associattion concerning its decisioon to supporrt Avalon Bay’s Ocean Avvenue with the Westwood Park h as one wo developm ment, Cal identified Avalo on’s community engagem ent approach orth emulatin ng. As described d by the We estwood Park Neighborh hood Associaation Board, Meg Spriggs was a “stterling example” of how a devveloper shoulld engage the e local commuunity. Avalon did several things correctly with their ap uilding comm pproach to bu munity suppo ort: 1. Managed M solicitations forr the commu unity meetinngs by invitiing every ho omeowner in n the Westwood Par W rk neighborho ood to attend d. 2. Hosted numerrous meetingss over a severral year periood (+10 comm munity meetin ngs). 39

3. Hosted Neighb borhood Grou up specific me eetings 4. In ncorporated suggestions from the meetings m intoo the buildiing design. In particularr, the Association ap ppreciated Avvalon’s willinggness to step down their b building height on the Weestern Corner of the ssite. 5. Recording the content of diiscussions and d agreementss throughoutt the process We propo ose that theyy Master Devveloper for th he site emplooy a similar p process – enggaging comm munity stakehold ders early and d incorporatin ng input into plans as posssible. Given tthe depth of anti‐develop pment sentimentt related to tthe site and tthe coordinattion of the lo cal neighborh hood groups,, it is vital thaat the project be e framed as a solution to ccurrent proble ems and an aasset to the lo ocal communiity.

8. RFP AND DISPOSITIO D ON PROCESSS ‐ LET THEE MARKET DETERMIN E THE HIG HEST AND BEST USE As a consultant to the e SFPUC, our goal is to help the client rrealize the hiighest and beest use resultting in revenue maximizing disposition. To do this, Cal consiidered threee alternative options forr land dispositio on: Option 1: Imm O mediate sale of property aas currently zzoned UC rezone an Option 2: SFP O nd entitle the e property prrior to sale Option O 3: SFFPUC enter a a competitivvely based ““public privatte option” aagreement w with a private develo opment entityy While the e immediate “as‐is” land ssale of option n 1 would bee the least rissky and mostt expeditious sales mechanism for the SFFPUC, it doess not achieve e the land vaalue maximization goal th hat the SFPUC has ed. Without any entitlement or rezoniing certainty,, the amountt that develop pers will be w willing establishe to pay fo or the land will w be greatlly reduced by b the associ ated risks. Cal does nott recommend d this approach. In option 2, the SFPUC C entitles the e property prrior to land ssale either in nternally or th hrough a serries of hired con nsults. Give en the highlyy technical and a proceduural nature o of development rezoningg and entitleme ent in San Francisco, this w will likely requ uire additionaal staffing and extensive cconsultant services for the SFPUC. We feel f that the SFPUC’s lack of core coompetency in n entitlementt and markett rate ment will prod duce a less th han optimal e entitled projeect which willl not maximizze land valuee. We developm do not reccommend thiis approach. We propo ose that the SSFPUC will be best able to achieve theirr core goals iff they utilize option 3 and go to market with w an open public develo opment prop posal process to allow thee highest performing playyers in the real estate industryy to creatively maximize th he economic and commun nity value of tthe site.

Cal’s analysis is based o on a public Re equest for Qu ualification (R RFQ) and Request for Prop posal (RFP) prrocess where the e SFPUC engaages a real esttate developm ment companny in an exclu usive negotiatting agreement (ENA) whe ere the privatte developer takes on the burden of th e entitlemen nt process and d the SFPUC ggains the econo omic benefit o of the risk it aaccepts in “paartnering” witth the develo oper through the entitlemeent process. A. SFPUC C LAND DISP POSITION P ROCESS Part of our o responsib bility in actin ng as consulttants to the SFPUC is to o ensure that we have aa firm understan nding of the d disposition prrocess and regulatory requuirements asssociated with h SFPUC land sales. As a publiic agency, the e land sale must be a public bid proces s. Prior to thee public offerring, a multiaggency approval process mustt be complete ed. As a City o of San Francissco public agency, the SFP PUC is subjectt to specific rrules and proccesses that govern the dispo osition of Cityy owned prop perty. The City’s C internall process can n be significant in the tim me the process re equires and the risk associated with the fact that thhey must offer any propertty for sale to other public age encies. It is critical to understand this p public sales pprocess as it h has significant impact on ttiming and the nature of deve eloper that will pursue the e purchase oppportunity. In order to understand d the constraiints associate ed with a City of San Franccisco land salee, we revieweed the process with w David Prowler (form mer SF Planning Commissiioner) with cconsultation from Gary D Dowd, Director o of the SFPUC's Bureau of Commercial Land Manageement and Jo ohn Updike, Director of C City of San Franccisco Real Estate Division. Please see A Appendix C foor our corresp pondence thaat combines inputs from all th hree parties. Our resea arch has foun nd the followiing City internal dispositio on process an nd approximaate timeline: SFPUC – City S of San Franciisco Internal Land Disposiition Process :

1. 1

2. 2

3. 3 4. 4

SFPUC R Real Estate prroposes to the SFPUC Com mmission thatt the propertyy is no longer needed (Assume thiss is starting po oint of our scchedule) SFPUC p prepares disposition due d diligence docuuments (title check, file ch heck for disclo osure upon saale, appraised d value, etc) and simultaneeously requessts SFPUC Com mmission app proval for land disposition aand “surplus”” declaration. The surplus declaration ccan actually o occur at differrent times in the sale process, howeverr the Directorr of the SF Real Estate Division prefers to get SFPUC C Commission approval firsst. (2 ‐ 3 mon nths) SFPUC n notifies City o of San Francisco Real Estat e Division of desire to disp pose of propeerty City of SSan Francisco Real Estate D Division offerrs property fo or sale to otheer City Agenciies and a sp pecified list off local, state aand federal eentities at a deesignated minimum price.. (Alternaatively, the SFFPUC can seek public agenncy acquisition n interest prior to SFPUC Commisssion approvaal, then after clearing that hurdle, go to o the SFPUC C Commission for declarattion of surplu us. However aas noted abovve it is preferrable to get SFPUC Commiission 41

approvaal prior to oth her agency ou utreach). (2 –– 3 months ‐ 30 days noticce for each processs) * For pu urposes of ourr competition n we are assum ming that othher Public ageencies do nott wish to purch hase this prop perty from SFFPUC

5. 5

City of SSan Francisco Real Estate D Department tto request thee Board of Su upervisor approval for surp plus designation and also fo or approval foor a public RFFQ (Request ffor Qualifications) and RFP P (Request forr Proposal) prrocess for prooperty dispossition. (2 ‐ 6 m months)

6. 6

7. 7

The Boaard of Supervisors approve es the properrty designatio on as surplus aand approvess the RFQ – R RFP land dispo osition processs. City of SSan Francisco Division or R Real Estate offficially design nates the site as surplus. TThe public R RFQ ‐ RFP process can now w begin in earnnest.

As the ab bove timeline e suggests, this multiple agency internaal approval p process is verry time consu uming and comp plicated given n the identifie ed stakeholders. After coonsultation w with public prrocess expertts, we have alloccated one year for this internal approvval process. However theere are otherr tasks that can be accomplisshed concurre ently as we w will explore be elow. Understan nding the po olitical and procedural hu urdles that neeed to be saatisfied in ord der to initiatte the public RFQ Q ‐ RFP proce ess is important in understtanding the exxpected timee horizon for R RFQ ‐ RFP issu uance and the associated a tim me related market m risk. In our follow wing schedulee analysis, we will refer tto the above 12 month proce ess as “SFPUC C Internal Land d Disposition Approval Pro ocess.” B. TIMIN NG OF RFQ A AND RFP CR REATION: In additio on to the inte ernal City app proval processs for disposiition, the preeparation for and creation n of a public RFQ Q and RFP are separate an nd distinct tasks. We feel that market conditions in n San Franciscco for a develop pment opporttunity are currrently favoraable and steaddily improving. The possib bility of a onee year internal C City approval process pluss an additionaal year in RFQ Q ‐ RFP prep paration and execution exposes the projecct to the risk of the real esstate market cchanges befoore the RFP reesponses are received. In order to leverage th he current favvorable market conditionss, we proposee that the SFP PUC begin creeating their RFQ Q and RFP documents ass soon as the SFPUC Co mmission givves approval for the pro operty dispositio on (step 2 abo ove). In this way, the RFQ Q and RFP doocument creation processs and City intternal approval processes wiill be runningg concurrentlyy in order to bring the prroperty to maarket as quickly as phase possible. Please refer to Appendix C for a graphic schedule reepresentation of this RFP preparation p of the devvelopment. 42

C. THE R RFQ AND RF P STRATEGIIC PROCESS : Cal propo oses both an R RFQ and RFP as a two‐step p developer sselection proccess to maxim mize the beneefit to SFPUC wh hile providingg the most co ompetitive de eveloper respponse pool. A A public RFP response can n be a very expe ensive endeavvor for a private real estatte company; a developer respondent ccan easily speend in excess of $100,000 in due diligencce and design n costs in an RFP responsse of this sizee. As a result, the r to a broadly distributed RFP R for this site may dis courage som me highly quaalified costs of responding developm ment groups frrom participaating. In order tto ensure the e most qualified and comp petitive pool oof developer respondentss, Cal suggests that the SFPU UC work with h a public process p conssultant to crraft a RFQ tto solicit ressponses from m the developm ment commun nity prior to aa formal RFP process. As a minimum w we would sugggest that thee RFQ asks the d developer respondents to provide the ffollowing: Request For Q R Qualification Consideratio on Factors: 1. High Level Development Vision n and Site Usee Concept 2. Alignment of Interrest with Balb boa Park Statiion Area Plan n 3. Resou urce Focused Sustainabilitty Strategies tto be Employed in Develop pment 4. Affordable Housin ng and Open SSpace Consideerations 5. Comm munity Outreach Experience and Plans 6. Finan ncial Capacity & Track Reco ord for Execu tion 7. Qualifications and Letters of Re ecommendat ion 8. Experrience with Siimilar Develo opment Projeccts 9. Confirmation of Ability to Meett SFPUC Stipuulated Minimum Price The resp ponses to th he above criteria are experience‐baased and deemonstrate ffinancial cap pacity. Importanttly, the RFQ response will not require e large expennditures on design or financial modelin ng for the respondent develo opers. As a re esult the SFPU UC will benefiit from a largger pool of intterested deveeloper es. candidate Based on RFQ responses and interview, the SFFPUC will esttablish a “short list” of n no more than n four finalists. This first stagge of the selection processs will ensure tthat the SFPU based UC is selectingg its finalists b on their ability a to exe ecute and the e merits of their experiennce rather th han being influenced by d design concepts and images that are typicaally included in RFP responnses.

These devveloper finalists will then be asked to rrespond to a formal RFP that will provide more dettail on their speccific plan for the site as well as a lan nd purchase value commitment. Und der this two stage selection strategy, the finalist developers will fe eel confident in putting toggether a detaailed and thorough RFP respo onse knowingg that they are e one of four in a very seleect group. D. PUBLIIC RFP SCOR RING SYSTE M: Once the group of finaalists is selectted from the RFQ process,, an establish hed set of sco oring guidelines for ng RFP responses will beco ome an impo ortant area off focus. How this scoring ssystem is weighted the ensuin will shape e the contentt and scope o of the develop pment conce pts submitte d. As such, tthis scoring syystem must be thoroughly co onsidered by SSFPUC and co ommunicatedd early in the RFQ process to ensure thaat the elopment conncepts in keep ping with the agencies goaals for respondents are incentivized to foccus their deve the site. his scoring sysstem might lo ook like and hhow it might affect the Caal Team’s visio on for To undersstand what th the site, w we have estab blished a conceptual scoring system thhat we feel reeflects the SFP PUC’s priorities for the land d disposition givven a select list of pre‐quaalified finalistts. To inform m our compon nent weightin ng, we studied th he June 2000 decision of tthe SFPUC Co ommission to select GHC B Bernal Investo ors LLC, as a result of a public RFP process for 500 acres of land in Pleasanton, CCa. In this caase the PUC C Commissioneer Ann dent with thee highest offeering price th hat was ultim mately Moller Caaen noted thaat it was the RFP respond 12 selected ssince the PUC C has a fiduciaary responsibility to the puublic when deealing with it’s assets. Given the e importance of this fiduciaary responsib bility and our two core clieent objectivess, we proposee that the scorin ng system forr the RFP response be weighted as outtlined below.. The below w proposed sccoring system sh hould ultimate ely incent the e developers tto strive for tthe following objectives: i. Offer the High O est Land Purcchase Price ii. Demonstrate tthe Highest A Ability to Close e on the Landd Transaction and Execute iii. Provide the Highest Public B Benefit iv. Sttrive for High Levels of Ressource Focuse ed Sustainabiility RFFP Respondent Proposal Scoring Syste em

Financial Propo osal:

1. Propossed Land Purchase Price (based ( on higghest lump sum land offeering while 40% considering “Densitty Bonuses” o offered) 2. Financial Feasibilityy of Proposal (including ddemonstrated d ability to seecure debt 10% and eq quity financingg 12 SF Gate, Yumi Wilson, Bernadette Taansey, Chronicle Staff Writerss, June 1, 20000 44

De evelopment C Concept:

1. Design n Quality – Inccluding Physiccal and Entitleement Feasib bility

15%

2. Resourrce Focused SSustainability Concepts

15%

3. Consisttency with Baalboa Park Staation Area Plaan

10%

De evelopment T Team Experie ence

2. Demon nstrated Ability of Develop per to Executee Comparablee Projects To otal

10% 100%

A core co oncept in our public dispossition process is that the SFPUC gains the benefit o of being partnered with the developer respondent thrrough the entitlement an d rezoning of the site. In n order to exxecute opose that the t SFPUC require r bothh a lump su um land purrchase price from this strattegy, we pro respondents as well as a “density bonus” land calculation w which is relateed to the number of units that the winning develope base assump er is ultimately able to get entitled over their b ptions. Stronger preferencce will be give en to a highe er lump sum payment offeered but consideration will also be givven to attractive e “density bon nus” structure es. Cal includ ded the densitty bonus conccept in order to address thhe concern th hat developers might havee with the entitle ement risks associated witth increasing density. Beloow is an exam mple of this sttructure: Based on n Cal’s propo osed develop pment, curren nt lump sum m land value is projected to be $33M M plus $45,000 ffor every addiitional entitled unit over 50 00 units. If thhe Site is thenn entitled at C Cal’s proposed unit count of 1 1,052, the SFP PUC would recceive an addiitional $24M ffor a total saale price of $5 57M. By encouraging respon ndents to be as competitive as possibl e with their llump sum lan nd price whilee also f SFPUC vaalue participaation should the developeer exceed their underwritten density goals allowing for during en ntitlement, the “Density Bo onus” strateggy aligns the interests of tthe responding developerrs and the SFPUC C. These align ned incentive es are both fin nancial and eenvironmentaal in nature due to the inh herent environmental benefitt in maximizing residentiaal unit countss in this high hly transit oriented urban in‐fill location. E. EXCLU USIVE NEGO OTIATING A GREEMENT (ENA) AND D PURCHASEE AGREEMEENT – “PARTTNERING FO OR THE ENT ITLEMENT PPROCESS” As noted above, there e is great value to be gained by SFPU UC in establishing a contraactual relatio onship with a de eveloper that allows the SFPUC to participate p in the econom mic value creeated through the entitleme ent process while reducingg risk by estab blishing a minnimum land purchase pricee.

The ENA p process allow ws the developer to pursue e entitlementt and rezoning without thee capital burd den of a large “d day one” land d purchase. A At the same time, it allow ws the develo oper to be m more confiden nt and aggressive e in their land d offer amount as they have the inhereent option vaalue of knowing the outcome of their entiitlements be efore having to commit to t the majo rity of the land purchasse payment. This arrangem ment is mutually beneficial as the SFPUC C benefits froom the higherr land value itt receives from the developerrs reduced en ntitlement risk and option value. Once a de eveloper is se elected and aa minimum laand value hass been established, we reccommend thaat the SFPUC req quire a 5% do own payment of land valu ue from the w winning deveeloper. In addition, we su uggest that quarterly paymen nts of around d $100,000 be e made to thhe SFPUC. Bo oth the down n payment an nd the quarterly payments will be attributtable to the ffinal land payyment. The idea behind tthis structuree is to ensure th hat the deve eloper is pro operly incented to expeddite and maxximize the eentitlement o of the property. In speaking with Carl Shaannon of Tish hman Speyer,, he also noteed that the d down paymen nt and p sho ould be substantial enouggh that if thhere is a market downturn at the tim me of interim payments entitleme ent that the developer d sho ould still wan nt to make thheir remainin ng land paym ment after ign noring the “sunkk costs” of the e earlier paym ments. The ENA will likely haave a conservvative termin nal date thatt will give the developer adequate tim me to entitle the e site should some unfore eseen condition arise. W We would reco ommend thatt the ENA con ntract period be e limited to no more than 5 years. The developer will be required to solely conduct and d bear the burde en and cost off satisfying all of the techn nical and sociial requiremeents of the en ntitlement pro ocess. The SFPU UC will be a “silent” “ partn ner in the prrocess as thee developer w will be fully responsible ffor all aspects of o the rezoning and entittlement apprroval processs. This includes meeting and satisfying all regulatoryy, communityy and CEQA re equirements.. The ENA aagreement w will end when developer haas achieved reezoning and eentitlement o of the site. A At that point in time, t a purch hase agreeme ent will be siggned betweeen the SFPUC C and the devveloper whicch will transfer p property rightts in exchange e for the outsstanding land payment fro om the develo oper. Please reffer to Appen ndix D which provides a detailed d time line for whatt we anticipaate for the vaarious stages of the ENA and purchase agrreement. W We are confideent that a fulll EIR that buillds upon whaat was have allocateed time accord dingly contemplated in the Balboa Park Sttation Area Pllan will be neecessary and h hedule. in our sch In our me eetings with tthe SFPUC, w we learned thaat this ENA –– purchase aggreement pro ocess is not new to the SFPUC C. In 2004, th he SFPUC ente ered into an exclusive neggotiating agreeement with Greenbriar H Homes for the po otential acquiisition of 7.5 acres in the FFremont‐Nile s Reservoir aarea in Pleasanton. As succh, we feel that tthis approach h has precede ent within SFP PUC and will m maximize theeir participatio on in land vallue by allowing tthem to partiicipate in the e risk reductio on and value created thro ough the entittlement proccess in San Franccisco.

F. FEE S IMPLE LAND D SALE VERSSUS GROUN ND LEASE OPPTION Given the e time horizon n of the SFPU UC’s operatio ons, we felt thhat the agenccy may be weell suited for a 99‐ year grou und lease arrrangement in n‐lieu of a fee simple lan d sale. Therre are benefits and draw wbacks associated d with this approach. Ho owever, afterr vetting this concept witth industry w we feel that aa land lease stru ucture is not ideal for this disposition n. Alternativvely, we havee come up w with an innovvative concept that t will provvide the bene efits of a fee e simple land sale with th he economic sustainabilityy of a ground lease. The beneffits of the gro ound lease op ption include the creation of a recurrin ng land lease payment thaat is in keeping with w the SFPU UC’s goals through the crreation of a ssustainable lo ong‐term eco onomic beneffit for ratepayerrs. Furthermo ore, it would simplify the SSFPUC land d isposition pro ocess as it wo ould no longeer be a dispositio on, but instead d a lease. In the privvate sector, there are deve elopment gro oups that see benefit in a gground lease structure. Ceertain REIT deve eloper entitie es are highly focused on cash flow annd portfolio level returns and the abillity to avoid a large land paym ment and insttead amortize e land value oover a 99 yeaar horizon can n be valuable. This is especiaally true when n the investm ment horizon and product life of those REITs is far lless than 99 yyears. Some exaamples of reccent Bay Area REIT groun nd leases devvelopment include Avalon n Bay Pleasan nt Hill Bart Statio on Apartmen nts, Avalon Baay Walnut Cre eek Bart Statioons and BRE Walnut Creekk Bart Station ns. The draw wback associated with a grround lease is i the limitattions it puts o on financing. In speakingg with equity and d debt professsionals, we u understand th hat a 50 bps ppenalty will bee placed on eentry cap ratees and a 50 bps to 100 bps penalty p place ed on exit caap rate assum mptions by fiinancial instittutions if theey are mportant to laarge national REITS willing to underwrite tthese deals at all. This draawback may not be as im such as Avvalon Bay thaat often choo ose to develop p sites from ccapital markeet equity and no debt. Forr both groups it is clear that tthe value thaat they are w willing to offerr for land und der a ground lease scenarrio wil likely be le ess than a fee e simple interrest on a pressent value ba sis. In discusssing the concept of grou und leases with w industry professionalls, we receivved the very clear message that if the SFPUC mand dates a grou und lease it will severelly limit the pool of pottential es that we fou und were relaated to financcing issues asssociated with h debt seniorrity on developerrs. Challenge leased lan nd and the loss of inherent real estate trading valuee with the absence of fee simple owneership. For all of f these reason ns, we do no ot recommend d that the SFFPUC mandatte a ground lease progra am for p with an innovative soluttion to repliccate the beneefits of the grround the site, iinstead we have come up lease for SSFPUC throug gh the creatio on of an inveestment trustt. If the SFP PUC finds the e ground lease concept compelling, c w we suggest th hat they direect the respo onding developerrs to provide a fixed lump sum fee simple land purcchase price w with the option of also provviding a 99 year ground lease e payment pllan for SFPUC C consideratioon. However, we feel thaat a more effficient and elegaant way to con nvert the lum mp sum land p payment to a sustainable eeconomic ben nefit for the SSFPUC is to estaablish an inve estment trusst which wou uld receive t he land paym ment from tthe developer and convert th hat land paym ment to an an nnuity style recurring paym ment plan. TThe trust wou uld be managged by 47

a professiional investm ment managem ment compan ny. This conccept is in direect alignmentt with the SFPUC’s core objective of creatting a sustainaable economic benefit for their rate payers. G. ANTIC CIPATED RFP P RESPOND ERS: ‐ DEALL STRUCTUR RE Based on conversation ns with Jason n Flynn, Managing Directoor at Eastdil Secured, ourr understandiing of RFP process, and the scaale of development that w the RFQ‐R will likely takke place on the site, we have identified three poten ntial buyer po ools of develo opment orgaanizations thaat are likely tto be successsful in ponse to the R RFQ‐RFP proccess. This is n not meant too suggest thatt the respond ding parties w will be their resp limited to o one of these three types of firms, but instead provides a lo ook at who the SFPUC’s likely respondents will be. I.

LARGEE WELL CAPIITALIZED M ULTIFAMILYY REIT

National aand regional Apartment R REITs would b be attracted t o this site baased on their current objectives of investin ng in San Francisco. In com mbination wiith their acceess to historiccally low cost of capital an nd the ability to self‐finance p projects of th his size, REITs would potenntially displayy the greatestt ability to paay the m price for this land. For e example, John n Wayland, EV VP at BRE Pro operties, stated that BRE w would maximum use their equity line off credit, which h is currently at 150 basis points over LLIBOR. In our con nversations w with Avalon Bay, BRE and EEquity Resideential, we aree confident th hat the prospect of this size d development site in San Francisco is hiighly desirablle to these grroups. Both groups noted d that the timefrrame that we e have contem mplated for development w works well w with their deveelopment pip peline. Meg Sprin ngs at Avalon n Bay stated that she hass their 2013 starts lined u up, but is currently lookin ng for developm ment projects starting past 2014. OPMENT G GROUPS BA ACKED BY INSTITUTIO ONAL II. PRIVA TE DEVELO CAPITA AL In this caategory, we conducted c se everal intervie ews with a hhost of oppo ortunistic devvelopers that have varying degrees d of exxpertise in multifamily m development. They all cclearly saw the value creeation potential in the site and a several noted that their equity ppartners are eager to invvest in a rare San Francisco multifamily aand mixed pro oduct opporttunity. Wilson M Meany Sullivan n expressed interested in the opportunnity and poin nted out that this project bears strong sim milarities to their Bay Meadows deve elopments. Prometheus,, Signature P Properties, Simeon Developm ment, Grosven nor Americass, Panoramic and Prado aall liked this location due to strong demand fundamen ntals includin ng commutingg and transit benefits, ba rriers to entrry and high rrent growth iin the San Franccisco market. Shea Hom mes and alon ng with othe er for‐sale re esidential buiilders Cal consulted conttemplated full site acquisition, but prefe erred the co oncept of a master deveeloper or otther entity ggoing through the

entitleme ent process and a parceling out a smalle er sector of the site and delivering itt in a “super pad” parcel. Of all the e three develo oper organizaations outline ed here, the Cal team has modeled our proposal tto fall into this ccategory where we are an entrepreneu urial and oppoortunistic devveloper that is backed by eequity ebt financing partners aand project d g. From con nversations with w institutional capital paartners, we l earned that this project w would have aa very competitive RFQ‐RFP p process. Chriss Cole, Director of Acquisittions at Invessco Real Estatte, stated thaat this w be welll suited for their t $500 million value ffund ($250 m million curren ntly raised) or that project would Invesco co ould potentiaally raise mon ney from one of their penssion fund clieents, such as the State Boaard of Florida, to o finance the e equity on th he project. M Morgan Linglee, VP of Acqu uisitions at JP Morgan, said this project co ould potentiaally be attracctive to their $4 billion vaalue fund, wh hich has a grreater appetitte for entitleme ent risk than tthe $20 billion n core fund. III. MASTEER DEVELOP PER – FLIP SSTRATEGY The last potential ressponding group that we have identif ied would be an entitlem ment and master‐ mpany that would w purchaase the site aand entitle a mix of uses similar to th he Cal planning specialist com team proposal. Once the site is en ntitled, this ggroup would tthen sell the entitled parccels to the hiighest n each catego ory. For example, this master developper might seell the townhome properties to bidders in Shea Hom mes, the aparrtments to a large national REIT like EEquity Resideential and thee student oriented housing to o Panoramic Interests (Pattrick Kennedyy’s student orriented housing developm ment companyy). With this “Flip” strateggy, the maste er developer rrealizes the eeconomic valu ue of de‐riskin ng the entitleement e benefit of a competitively bid land saale on the en ntitled aspect of the development. They also gain the parcels. A An example o of this group might be a ffirm like Lennnar that has considerablee expertise in large land area entitlement work in San Francisco, but who in thiis case mightt not choose to develop aany of products. the final p

9. DESIGN “Balboa P Park Area acts as a hub an nd boundary lline in San Frrancisco, a cro ossroads betw ween Ingleside, Westwoo od Park, Sunn nyside, Excelssior and Oute er Mission Neeighborhoodss (Balboa Park Historic Resource Survey).” The Westtwood Terracce developm ment will tran nsform the eexisting 17.5‐‐acre Balboa Reservoir frrom a barren, co oncrete void in the city’s fabric into a a vibrant, susstainable neigghborhood. W Westwood Teerrace will introd duce to the B Balboa Park N Neighborhood d a variety of housing optiions and public open spacce in a convenien nt location close c to a myyriad of pub blic transit opptions and the Ocean Avvenue comm mercial district. A A pedestrian n focused ne eighborhood,, Westwood Terrace willl integrate with the exxisting neighborh hoods, stitching together tthe massive vvoid that currrently mars th he area. This new public rrealm, 49

where bu uildings, stree ets and open n spaces work together too create a co omfortable and richly texxtured environment, will be a model development for aa San Franciscco of the futu ure.

Existing R Reservoir

Site Persp pective A.

DENSITY BUFFERS AN ND BUILD U UP

Westwood Terrace will tie together an area of B Balboa Park llong separateed by a massive, concretee lined opment will act a as a tran nsition betweeen two distiinct architecttural styles: small, reservoir. The develo single‐fam mily bungalow ws to the west and large, in nstitutional eeducational bu uildings to the east. In ord der to respect and preserve the small neighborhood feel f of Westw wood Park to o the west, aa row of two‐story 50

town hom mes will have rear yards that back up tto the rear y ards of the eexisting neigh hborhood. M Moving east acrosss the site, th here are thre ee‐story town n homes oriennted around public “pockket parks.” A grand tree lined d boulevard with a central green me edian createes a transitio on zone betw ween single‐ffamily residentiaal buildings and higher‐d density multti‐family builldings. Thesee four‐story multi‐familyy and student‐o oriented build dings create tthe highest density and laargest scale area of the sitte, transitioning to City Collegge across Phe elan Avenue tto the east.

SITE ACCEESS

One of th he challengess of this site is the restriccted access ppoints. We have planned for two veh hicular access po oints; one at the southern n end of the site from thhe new Lee A Avenue Exten nsion off of O Ocean Avenue and a the other at the nortthern end of the site off of Phelan A Avenue. Theree are two prrimary pedestrian access poin nts. One is at tthe southeast corner of thhe site, wheree people enteer coming from the e Muni turnaaround. The second is frrom the new w Brighton A Avenue pedestrian BART stattion and the greenwayy, which biseccts the Avalon n Bay develop pment at the southern edge of the sitee. This access point feeds off the entrance to Whole Foods and primary retail access at th he Avalon deevelopment. Other Way, part of nts connect to o San Ramon f the Westwo ood Park neigghborhood, as well pedestrian access poin o the new Ing leside Libraryy. as the planned pedestrian greenway adjacent to

Site accesss points C.

BUILDING DESIGN: I. TOWNH OMES – BA SED ON NE IGHBORHOO OD DESIGN GUIDELINE S

For‐sale two and three e‐bedroom to own homes m make up the majority of tthe west sidee of the Westtwood d t. The town n homes acct as a smoooth transittion between the residential Terrace development neighborh hood to the w west and the higher‐density multi‐fam mily buildings to the east. TThe homes should respond tto the archite ectural style aand materialss of the singlee‐family bunggalows of Weestwood Parkk. The Westwood Park Association has published “Residential Desiggn Guidelines,,” which shou uld be consulted in the design of the town n homes. The e strip of tow wn homes runnning north tto south alon ng the west side of will be two‐sto ories and orie ented toward ds the street. Both the garrage and entrance will facce the the site w street and d there will be b a small re ear yard backing up to thee existing neiighborhood. This orientattion is meant to maintain the e neighborhoo od feel for the e residents off Westwood Park. All otheer town homees will be three sstories. Theirr garages will be oriented towards alleyys at the rearr of the housse while theirr main entrancess will face on ne of the many pocket paarks. A small porch and ffront yard wiill soften the edge between sidewalk and d building. To own homes will w be clusteered into no more than seven in a ro ow to

prevent too large a bu uilding mass.. Clusters will have no lesss than threee town homees for constru uction efficiencyy. Figure Ga arages frontin ng vehicular aalleys

Pocket pa ark surrounde ed by residen ntial buildingss II. MULTI FAMILY – C COMPLIMEN NTARY TO AV V ALON AND D CCSF Westwood Terrace will w offer thre ee multi‐fam mily building es. These co omplexes willl be comprised of “L” complexe shaped buildings orien nted around a central cou urtyard. The complexe ings on at le es have open east three sid des to break up the building mass, aallow light to penetrate to o the interior units, and d allow reside ents to pass through at many m points. The build dings will havve height settbacks along the central boulevard d to allow mo ore light to re each street level. Building heights and a orientattions will maximize m sou uthern solar exposure.. Example of interior co ourtyard. (Daavid Baker)

Solar Dia agram AL – SEEM MLESS EXTE RIOR DESIG GN – III. STUD ENT ORIEN TED RENTA INTTERIOR FOC CUS ON EFFIICIENCY Student oriented o renttal housing comprises two o buildings aalong the norrthern edge of the site. TThese buildings are slightly issolated from the town ho omes and mu lti‐family buildings by means of a tree‐lined median. TThis creates aa more traditiional collegiate housing feeel for that seection of the site, and pro ovides privacy to o other reside ents. The buildings are orriented arounnd a central ggreen, similarr to the traditional quads of student houssing. Perforattions in the buildings b alloow residents to pass through from thee east he site and create the op pportunity forr gathering inn the centrall courtyard. TThe unit sizees and side of th organization are design ned to maxim mize efficiencyy, allowing foor affordable residences fo or students. 55

OPEN SPA ACE: II.

ST REET TREATTMENT

Miramar Aven M nue in Westw wood Park circca 1919 (outssidelands.orgg) Th he street network in We estwood Terrrace is compprised of a h hierarchy of scales. The sstreet pattern create es a finely textured t neigghborhood tthat mimics the scale off the surrounding ngaging peedestrian rroutes thro ough the site. neighborhoods while offering en

Primary Axes 56

Th he central bo oulevard runn ning along the e primary norrth‐south axiss of the site ccreates the ceentral fe eature of the e Westwood Terrace deve elopment. M odeled after the tree‐lineed medians iin the Westwood Pa W rk neighborhood, this bou ulevard creattes a grand promenade leeading througgh the site.

Westwood Pa W rk Median

ood Park Med dian Westwo

Exxample of pe edestrian orie ented boulevard (Perkins and Will) The comb bination of narrow n stree et widths, wide w sidewalkks, and widee vegetated medians creeate a pedestrian‐friendly boulevard.

Section th hrough main boulevard sh howing tree lined median Moving down in scale are neighborhood streets,, facilitating vvehicular acceess on and offf of the site. TThese street wid dths are narrrow to reduce e vehicular speed. Alleyw ways cut throu ugh the town n home portiion of the site, p providing resiidents access to their garaages. These a lleyways also o break up the blocks and allow pedestrian passage acrross the site.

Section th hrough neigh hborhood stre eet The smalllest scale of the street ne etwork consists of pedesttrian paths that are posittioned to creeate a porous sitte and encourages residen nts to walk ratther than usee their cars.

Section th hrough pedesstrian path The main n pedestrian path links Saan Ramon Way W (part of the Westwoo od Park neigghborhood) tto the central grreen in Westtwood Terrace. This path h follows thee primary eaast‐west axis,, creating a grand pedestrian passagewaay with physical and visuaal linkages too City Collegee’s historic Science Hall (ffigure 9.10). This path creates a strongg connection between thhe site and Westwood Park, encourraging ounding neigghborhoods to t come onnto the site and make it part of their residents from surro hood. This iss in line with h the Balboaa Park Area Plan, which highlights tthe importan nce of neighborh respectingg the privacyy of the surro ounding neigh hborhoods w while providin ng visual and physical acceess to the site th hat aligns with existing stre eet patterns.

San Franccisco City Colllege: View fro om Balboa Re eservoir II. OPEN G GREEN SPAC CE Prior to development d t of the Balb boa Park neiighborhood, the area wa as home to native wildfl flower populatio ons. San Fran ncisco residen nts often visitted the area as a respite ffrom the cityy or stopped by on the way tto the beach.

In ngleside Wild dflowers Postcard‐ date un nknown (Balb boa Park Histtorical Contexxt Survey)

The nume erous scales of open gree en spaces (figgure 9.16) re ‐introduce naature to this previously b barren site. Theyy help to rede efine the relaationship betw ween nature and the city,, while encou uraging comm munity interactio on and recreattion.

Green Spa ace At the intersection of tthe two primary axes lies tthe central grreen, a focal point of the W Westwood Teerrace developm ment. This 2/3 3‐acre park acts as a centtral gatheringg spot and reecreation hub b for residentts and surroundiing community members. The park iss bordered onn three sidess by town ho omes whose ffronts are orientted towards tthe park. Thiss increases th he visibility off the park, en ncouraging a safer environ nment and creatting a smallerr, more neigh hborhood scale park that pprovides a co ontrasting scaale to Balboa Park. The centrral green is op pen on the eaast end, incre easing its visi bility from otther parts of the site and areas east of the site. Thiss is in line with w objective es from the Balboa Parkk Station Areea Plan citing the etration into o open space foor increased safety and to o encourage u use of importancce of ensuring visual pene the space. The green iss sheltered from prevailingg westerly wi nds by town homes.

Advertise ement for Westwood Parrk 1918‐1923 (Westwood Park Association) An assortment of smaller “pocket p parks” dots the lower dennsity portion of the site. TThese pocket parks er green spaces surrounde ed on all side s by town ho omes. Pedestrian paths prrovide are 1/4‐acre or smalle access to the “pocket parks” from all sides. The ese are more personal greeen common areas that arre still ut smaller in sscale than the e central gree en. Tree‐linedd medians creeate a third sccale of open green public, bu space. Th hese medianss provide gatthering space es for residennts while creeating natural buffers bettween residentiaal scales. The e medians cre eate a more shaded streeet‐scape redu ucing the heaat island effeect. In 63

addition, the medians can aide in sstorm water rretention andd help to redu uce runoff into the city’s sstorm water sysstem. Severall small green spaces dot the t developm ment and pro ovide flexiblee use for resiidents and comm munity memb bers such as d dog parks or ccommunity gaardens.

Example o of central gre een surround ded by residential buildinggs (Perkins an nd Will) III. PUBLIC C ART “Streets and open sp pace are the shared pu ublic space oof the city, the site of celebrationss and e stories andd histories off many diverrgent commu unities demonstrrations; they are the placce where the coincide. Art can serve e as a mirror and a condu uit for these vvarious mean nings; it can ttake on numerous ublic space (B Balboa Park SStation Area PPlan, pg. 53)..” Public art sshould be a major forms in tthe life of pu component of the ope en space of W Westwood Te errace. In linee with the Baalboa Park Arrea plan, public art e neighborhood and create a unique ppublic realm. Public art allows residentts and can help tto define the communitty members to express th heir identity aand can becoome symbolss of for the community. B Balboa Park has a long historry of being one of the mo ost diverse nneighborhood ds in San Fran ncisco. It is aa hub, n ds come together. Art in public open n spaces can show this unique where maany diverse neighborhood confluencce of people aand cultures.

IV. PEDES TRIAN / BIC CYCLE ACCESSS Westwood Terrace is a pedestrian oriented devvelopment. N Narrow streetts and wide ssidewalks inccrease eave their caars at home. The street neetwork becom mes a pedestrian safety and encourage residents to le social con nnector as walking w becomes the prim mary means of moving tthroughout tthe neighborhood. Situated close c to num merous publicc transit optio ons, coupled with a pedeestrian orientted plan creaates a neighborh hood where ccar ownership p is not requirred. A.

SUSTAINA ABILITY:

“The misssion of the San S Francisco o Public Utilitties Commisssion is to pro ovide our cusstomers with h high quality, efficient e and d reliable wa ater, power and wastew water servicces in a ma anner that vvalues environm mental and community inteerests and su ustains the ressources entru usted to the SSFPUC‘s care.” SFPUC Miission Statement. Financial Report 2009 9. As the pu ublic agency rresponsible fo or providing water, wasteewater and eelectrical pow wer services tto San Francisco,, environmen ntal resource managemen nt is at the heeart of the SFPUC’s missio on. In light o of that commitment, Cal recommends in ncluding sustaainability as a key criterrion during tthe RFQ and d RFP ew SFPUC headquarters h has set a new w bar for sustainable officee constructio on, we process. JJust as the ne believe W Westwood Terrrace can ach hieve the sam me high standdard for residential buildin ng. In‐line witth the SFPUC’s business b and guiding man ndate, we’ve focused ourr efforts on ttwo primary areas: energy and water. I.

LEED

ng sustainabiility leadership, the SFPUC C headquarteers at 525 Go olden Gate iss targeting a LEED In pursuin Platinum designation from the United States Green Buildding Council. As the de‐ffacto standarrd for d constructio on, LEED add ds value thro ugh its widespread recoggnition and b brand. sustainable design and 65

Moreoverr, the City of San Francisco o recognizes the value of LEED in theirr building cod des; as of 201 10, all new resid dential buildin ngs with 5 or more units and 75 feet in height must achieve a GreenPoint Ratting of 75 points or LEED Silve er Certification. Working with w LEED co onsultants fro om Webcor Builders B in coonjunction w with Water Recycling and Solar Power companies, Cal developed LEED checklistts for both th e Multifamilyy and Studentt Housing portions a LEED Gold certification. c us on reducin ng car of the site targeting a In combinatiion with our specific focu travel and addressingg both energgy and waterr conservatioon, we believve that the LEED Gold ttarget esource efficiiency and maaximal econom mic benefit. TThe full LEED D project checcklists achieves ssubstantial re can be fou und in Appen ndix F of this p proposal. II. SOLAR R In collabo oration with SunPower, Cal C identified the studentt housing and multi‐family portions o of the proposed design as sttrong candidaates for roofttop photovolltaics. SunPow wer used a ssimilar strategy on ment. This pu ublic‐private ddevelopmentt led by Carm mel Partners sought the UC Daavis West Village developm net‐zero energy conssumption through the integration i oof efficiencyy‐focused design with o on‐site generatio on. In additio on to rooftop p solar panells, the develoopment featured SMS m monitoring sysstems provided by SunPowerr and plug loaad monitoringg systems at tthe outlet level. To overco ome tradition nal financing and performaance concernns related to on‐site solarr, Cal asked EEnergy Producingg Retail Realty (EPR2) to provide a proposal p for the site. Th he full propo osal is includ ded in 2 Appendix F. EPR ’s in nnovative ap pproach to financing f mittigates produ uction and installation risk in ment access agreement. Once O the genneration capaacity is installed, EPR2 pro ovides exchange for an easem priority acccess to purchase renewable energy prroduced on‐ssite at a disco ount to utility retail. Cal beelieve this appro oach may be aappropriate ffor most deve elopers/owneers. III. STORM MWATER IN FILTRATION N AND CAPTTURE At presen nt, the Balboaa Reservoir sitte is almost e entirely pavedd with non‐peermeable asp phalt. Any rain n that falls on th he parking po ortion of the ssite flows dire ectly into sto rm water draains and bringgs with it pollution left by parked vehicless. Proposed d development should signifficantly seek to reduce sto orm water ru un‐off. water Cal identified two primary strateggies for improving site rrunoff: infiltrration zones and storm w capture. Infiltration zone offer the least exxpensive meaans for meetting the SFPU UC’s requirem ments for meeeting LEED cred dits SS6.1 an nd SS6.2. By using the natural hydroological proceess of infiltraation, these zones reduce ru un‐off and aid in the recharge of nattural aquiferss. A review o of the site byy BKF Engineeering suggests that t the sand dy soils available offer ide eal conditionns for this strrategy. Cal in ncluded infiltrration zones in the proposed project costss. A more expensive opttion that the SFPUC mightt consider reequiring onsitte is capture and reuse. R Re‐use requires installation off large cistern ns for collectiing and storinng water, treeatment systeems, and pum mps in 66

order to rre‐use the waater. In addition, re‐use in ntroduces thee requirement for anotherr network of p pipes, including dual plumbin ng of buildinggs if reuse witthin buildingss is desired. TTo assess thee viability of ssuch a potential dessign options. W While such a system is feaasible, system, Cal consulted with AquaCell to identify p it would aadd consideraable cost. Cal did not includ de onsite reuuse in its prop posed project. HARING IV. CAR SH In additio on to meetingg the LEED Su ustainable Site e requiremennts for Publicc Transportation Access, B Bicycle Storage and a Low‐Emitting Vehicle es, Cal engagged City Carr Share (CCSS) to review our develop pment program for best praactice guidan nce on integrating Car S hare spaces into the paarking facilityy. We e spaces be o offered to CCSS at $150 perr month. Thiss is a similar m model as has been recommend that these nted in several San Francisco apartm ment and con ndominium b buildings including successfully implemen bix and Mint Collection. Saan Francisco currently req quires 1 car sh hare unit for every SOMA Residences, Cub 201 or more u units). 200 dwellling units (forr building of 2 In their Best Practice gguides for carr sharing, CCSS lists the fol lowing criteria for car shaaring: high deensity, good pedestrian environment, low vehicle ownership rates, access to basic services aand transit, and an on‐site paarking ratio. In evaluating new locales, CCSF will addditionally lookk to nearby veehicle use rattes. In all regards, Westwood d Terrace will be well situaated for car shharing. Our ggoal for the site is 11 car sshares early twice th he City’s requ uirement. The ese vehicles w will be available to both rresidents and CCSF spaces, ne students. B. CO ONSTRUCTA ABILITY – CO ONSTRUCTIO ON PHASING G The recesssed topography of the site s presents both a desi gn challengee and opporttunity. Due to its intended use as a water reservoirr, the site has been excavvated to a flaat condition from its origginally sloped naative state. To oday, this me eans that the site is essenttially at gradee with Ocean Avenue alon ng the south borrder of the site. As the siite extends N North from O Ocean Ave, the perimeter conditions arround the site ggently slope u upward follow wing the original site topoography, whille the subjectt site remains flat, creating aan increasing depression in n the earth. The Cal te eam views th he existing re ecessed naturre of the sitee as a valuab ble asset rath her than a ph hysical hindrance e. After our conversation ns with BKF Engineers, N Nibbi Brotherss, Johnstone Moyer and other contracto ors, the Cal te eam looks at the existing e excavated naature of the ssite as an opp portunity to o obtain below graade parking fo or the cost of above grade parking. The Cal te eams program mming strategy takes advaantage of thee +/‐ 35’ deprression at thee north side o of the site to fill the recess with structured parking. This servess the purposee of filling th he void whilee also providing partial replacement parkking for the +//‐ 950 existinng parking staalls currently on site. Wee have d pricing in de etail with the contractors i ndicated in o our hard cost analysis. reviewed this plan and The cost aand schedule benefits beccome clear wh hen you conttemplate thatt on day one the contracto or can mobilize aand start placcing foundatiions. This was confirmed w with Andy Beeck, Project M Manager at A Avalon 67

Bay’s Oce ean Avenue campus. c Acccording to An ndy, the soil at the subjecct site is veryy well suited for a spread footing foundation system. With the site in an alreaddy excavated d condition, sp pread footinggs can ng grade saving the cost and time as sociated with h a massive earth movingg and begin from the existin excavation program. FFollowing the e parking stru uctures, earthhwork will balance the rem maining site, utility put in place an nd then a typ pical construc tion sequencce can begin. infrastruccture will be p To help demonstrate d our site logistics plan we w have put ttogether thee following vvisual sequen nce of constructtion operations:

10. FINANCIALL ANALYSIS A. DEVE LOPMENT P PROGRAM F INANCIAL S UMMARY For our financial feaasibility analyysis, we havve underwrittten our current propossal based on full ent of 452 units u of multifamily, 483 3 units of sttudent housiing, 117 tow wnhomes, an nd an entitleme undergrou und parking structure with w 1,181 stalls. In the following fin nancial analysis, Cal takees the perspectivve of the Master Develo oper in orderr to illustratee the approaach we believve many RFQ Q/RFP participan nts will take in their resp ponses. Cal will w develop the multifam mily and parkking structuree and construct the main infrrastructure fo or the Site. D During the enttitlement pro ocess, the master developeer will enter into o agreementss with townho ome and stud dent housing developers tto purchase ccertified padss after securing e entitlements. The downsid de scenario an nalyzes the bbest and higheest use based d on the prop perty’s current en ntitlements o of 500 multifaamily units. Based on our proposal, we receive e a 6.0% yield d to cost, 1.6xx equity multtiple, and 16..1% leveraged d IRR, which me eets the currrent underwriting criteriaa of BRE, Eqquity Residen ntial, Avalon Bay, Promettheus, Invesco, U USAA and Norrthwestern M Mutual (Appen ndix B).

We estwood Terraace ‐ Developm ment Summaryy ($ in 000's) oduct Type Pro

Cal Propose ed Multifamilyy

Downsid de Multifam mily

RSF Un nits Pa rking Stalls

394,925 452 1,181

436,750 500 425

Lan nd Basis Purchase ‐ PUC Sa le ‐ Student Ho ousing Pad Sa le ‐ Townhomee Finished Lot

Total $ $/RSF 57,539 $ 146 (28,253) (72) (21,835) (55)

Total $/RSF 32,199 $ 74 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Adjusted Land Baasis

7,450

$ 19

32,199

Adjusted Land Baasis Pree‐Developmentt

Total 7,450 5,973

$/RSF $ $ 19 15

Total $/RSF $ 32,199 $ 74 $ ‐ ‐

Inffrastructure

(1))

6,916

Pa rking Sofft Costs Ha rd Costs (3) Intterest + Loan Feee

19,230 28,823 123,351 1

49 73 312

‐ ‐ 33,077 76 110,255 252

6,397

3,673

Tottal

198,142 1

$ 502

$ 183,163 $

$ 419

Staabilized NOI Yieeld‐on‐Cost Yieeld‐on‐Cost (Un ntrended)

$ 14,891 7 7.5% 6 6.0%

$ 38

$ 10,857 $ 25 $ N/A 5.9%

Exiit Price Exiit Cap‐Rate Exiit Year

$ 271,606 2 5 5.5% Y Year 8

$ 688

$ 194,926 $ 446 $ 5.5% N/A

$76,870 $ 1.6x 1 16.1%

$ 195

$ 11,763 $ N/A N/A

Total $ 64,107 $ 119,056

(2)

Pro ofit Equity Multiple Levvered IRR Capitalization Equity Deebt

Total $ 69,125 129,017 1

35% 65%

(1)) Cal Proposed d includes the C CFD Financing (2)) Cal Proposed d includes repl acement parki ng fot the stud dent housing (3)) Includes interest during con nstruction and d 1% loan fee

$ 74

$3,960

% 35% 65%

B. LAND PURCHASE – “DOWNS IDE SCENAR RIO” PLUS D DENSITY BO NUS Based on our proposal for the site, we have und derwritten thhe following land acquisition structure:: once Cal is sele ected as the b buyer, we willl make a five percent dow wn payment off the currently entitled value of the land aat five hundre ed units (5% xx $32,198,868 8 = $1,609,9443). This is thee maximum vvalue based o on our downside e scenario. SFFPUC will carrry the land du uring our ent itlement periiod with Cal m making installment paymentss at $100,000 0 per quarterr. Finally, upo on completio n of our entiitlement worrk, Cal will paay the remainingg balance of tthe land as itt is currently zoned and a density bonus for the ad dditional units that for which receive entittlements. After disp position of th he townhome e and studen nt housing paads our remaaining basis in the deal w will be $7,450,49 93. See below w for details o of our land baasis: We stwood Terracce ‐ Land Basis Calculation Laand Acquisition n Cu urrent Zoning Deensity Bonus To otal Pu ursuit Costs To otal Land Acqu uisition Laand Structued Payments Do own Payment In nstallment Payyments

Price/ U Unit Units $64 4,398 500 45,000 552 $54 4,219 1,052

5% of Currrent Zoning Quarterlyy

Ce ertified Pad Saales Sttudent Housingg Pad To ownhome "Sup per Pad" Gross Certified Pad Sales ost of Sale Co Neet Certified Pa d Sales

$59 9,236 188 8,987

Ad djusted Land B Basis

Units 483 117

Total $32,198,,868 24,840,,000 $57,038,,868 500,,000 $57,538,,868

$1,609,9 943 $100,0 000 Total Sale V Value $28,610,,942 22,111,,462 $50,722,,404 (634,0 030) $50,088,,374 $7,450,,493

To determ mine the “Do ownside Scenario” land vaalue, Cal builtt residual mo odels to deteermine the cu urrent value of e each propose ed product tyypes based on n a maximum m of 500 unitts. As shown n below, maximum land value e is derived frrom the development of m multifamily:

"DOW WNSIDE SCENA ARIO" ANALY YSIS ‐ LOOKSS AT A MAXIM MUM OF 500 0 UNITS ON SITE Multiffamily Student Housing Number of Units in n Downside SScenario 500 500 0 Total R Residual Land d Value Per U Unit*

$72,318

$59,259

$36,158,868

$29,629,633

60,000) ($3,96

($2,640,000 0)

$32,198,868

$26,989,633

*Seee Land Residua als in Market An nalysis Section ((7F)

Do ownside Resiidual Land Vaalue ‐ Before e Infrastructu ure Le ess Private In nfrastructure e Costs "D Downside Sce enario" Resid dual Land Value

"DOWNSIDE SCENA ARIO" ANA ALYSIS - LOO OKS AT A MAXIMUM M O 500 UNITS OF S ON SITE Townhom mes Assumeed Density Perr Acre 18 17.5 Numbeer of Acres Avaailable 315

Numbeer of Units in Downside D Scena nario Total Residual R Land Value V Per Lot (From ( Residuaal)

$218 8,987

"Downsside Scenario" Residual Land d Value - Before Infrastructurre Lesss Private Infrasttructure Costs Lesss Public Infrastrructure Costs not n recoverablle through CFD D Financing Existting Parking Reeplacement Strructures - Costts Net Potentiaal Revenue

$68,980 0,860 $ (8,000 0,000) $ (7,500 0,000) $ (15,904 4,645) $ 37,576 6,215 6 12% $ 26,746 6,008

Gross Value Abso orption Period (years) Assu umed Avg. Disscount Rate Discou unt Value

* $ 26,746 6,008

"Down nside Scenario o" Residual Land L Value *Note that Townhome Assu umptions Must be b factored for lo onger absorption n period

C. SUMM MARY OF ASSSUMPTION S FOR PRO FORMA I.

MULTIIFAMILY AN D PARKING REVENUE

Based on industry conversations, Cal projects the developper to build and hold the multifamilyy and parking portions of the e Site in orde er to capture additional vaalue. Cal devveloped an eight year cash h flow multifamily co omponent co onsists model cullminating witth the sale of the propertyy upon stabilizzation. The m of 362 market m rate units u and 90 affordable units u (60% A AMI). The p parking garagge consists o of 384 dedicated d multifamily stalls and 797 7 public parking stalls. NO OI is expected d to stabilize iin October 20 021 at a total of $14.9 million n. The buildin ng is projecte ed to sell in M March 2022 att a price of $2 271.6 million. See below forr a summary o of key inputs and assumpttions:

W Westwood Terr race ‐ Revenue Underwriting C Current Rents B Building Square e Feet

Rentable e SF

Apartment/Com A mmunity Comm mon Area (GBA‐‐RBA) R Rental Square F Feet T Total Square Fe eet

98,7 731 394,9 925 493,6 656 To otal 80% 362 8 3 20% 90 452 4

TTotal Units M Market Rate A Affordable T Total Apartmen nt Units Market Rate M S Studio 1 1 Br/1 Ba Flat 2 2 Br/2 Ba Flat T Total/Average

# of Units 36 174 152 362

Unit Mix 8% 38% 34% 80%

SF/U Unit Avg. Mo. R Rent 515 $2,0 030 750 $2,6 630 $3,5 500 1,100 874 $2,9 936

Below Market R B Rate S Studio 1 1 Br/1 Ba Flat 2 2 Br/2 Ba Flat T Total/Average

# of Units 9 43 38 90

Unit Mix 2% 10% 8% 20%

SF/U Unit Avg. Mo. R Rent 515 $1,0 049 750 $1,1 116 $1,3 335 1,100 874 $1,2 202

P Parking Stalls Apartment Parkking A S Student Parking g T Total/Average

Ratio 0.85

Stalls

SF/U Unit Avg. Mo. R Rent

384 325 797 325 1,181 1 325

$2 200 $1 150 $1 166

Based on n our marke et analysis and research as well as the currentt trends in market, we have underwrittten the follo owing market rental grow wth rates. Jacckie Safier, C CEO at Promeetheus, confiirmed that this rental growth is consistent with the San S Franciscoo apartment market. A reeport provided by Colliers‐In nternational’ss Senior VP of o Multifamilyy Investmentts, Mark Feld dman, projectts total aparttment rent grow wth of 24% in i San Francisco over the e next five yyears. This d data is supported by National Associatio on of Realtorss and Moodyy’s Analytics. Cal’s projecttions are positioned below w this numbeer at a five year ttotal of 21% ggrowth. To offset the grow wth rates, wee included add ditional vacan ncies on top o of the standard 5% to most accurately re eflect large multifamily m pprojects. Bassed on recom mmendations from Morgan LLingle at JP M Morgan, we haave underwriitten the folloowing vacanccies, 5.00% reesidential, a 0 0.25% bad debt expense, and d 1.00% mode el/ employeess units.

Westwo ood Terrace ‐ G Growth Rates & & Vacancy Fact ors Growth h Rates Rental G Growth Rate Expensee Growth Rate Hard Co ost Inflator Vacancyy Rates Residen ntial Bad Debt nits Model// Employees Un Total Vaacancy

FY Y 13 FY 14 FY 16 FY 15 5.0 00% 5.00% 4.00% 4 4.00% 3.0 00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 3.00% 10.0 00% From now w until constructtion FY Y 13 5.0 00% 0.2 25% 1.0 00% 6.2 25%

FY 14 5.00% 0.25% 1.00% 6.25%

FY 15 5.00% 0.25% 1.00% 6.25%

FY 16 5.00% 5 0 0.25% 1.00% 6 6.25%

FY 17 7+ 3.00 0% 3.00 0%

FY 17 7+ 5.00 0% 0.25 5% 1.00 0% 6.25 5%

ould be in thee 28% Based on our conversaations with de evelopers, we e have concluuded that our expenses sho ective revenue. From our cconversation s with Avalon n Bay, the Avvalon at Union City to 33.0% range of effe 0%. While it is still in leasse its lease u up, Avalon B Bay underwro ote its is operatiing at approxximately 33.0 operatingg expenses fo or its Ocean n Avenue pro oject to 29% % of effectivee revenue. A As such, we have concluded d that 31% off effective revvenue is consiistent with thhe market. The PUC is not curren ntly paying taaxes at the site. s Howeverr, CAL underrwrote taxes based on the San Francisco’’s Tax Assesssors website,, which lists the tax rate for their disstrict at 1.172%. We havee also included aan increase o of $1,155 per unit per year for the CFD D bond, which h will run for the next 30 yyears. We have been told thaat the managgement fee caan be as low as 2%. Howeever, to be on the conservvative side, we sselected 2.50% % as it is conssistent with d discussions in the market. Westwood Te errace ‐ Operatting Expenses Annual Operaating Expenses// Per Unit Payroll, Beneffits, and Admin n Utilities Turnover Maintenance Advertising Landscaping Insurance mt Property Mgm Licenses & Feees Capital Reservves (Unit) Capital Reservves (Building) Bond Assessm ments Property Taxees & Assessmen nts Total

% of Total Total onthly Exp An nnual Exp Effective Revenue Mo 3.5 56% $53,041 $ $601,160 3.2 25% 48,455 549,180 0.7 74% 10,967 124,300 0.9 94% 13,958 158,200 0.6 67% 9,970 113,000 0.8 80% 11,964 135,600 0.7 75% 11,167 126,560 2.5 50% 37,559 450,714 0.2 27% 3,988 45,200 0.6 67% 9,970 113,000 0.4 40% 5,982 67,800 3.0 09% 46,081 522,272 13.70% 2 2,315,041 204,259 31.32% $443,502 $5 5,322,027

$1,,330 1,,215 275 350 250 300 280 997 100 250 150 1,,155 5,,122 $11,,774

II. TOWN NHOME AND D STUDENT HOUSING D DISPOSITION N A. DEAL STTRUCTURE Our deal sstructure for our townhom me and student housing paarcel sales is based on thee master deveeloper marketingg the sale of tthese parcelss early in the entitlement process. Thee master deveeloper will seelect a townhom me and studen nt housing bu uyer for the p parcels withinn the first 6 –– 12 months of the entitleement process. At that pointt in time, the e master deve eloper will ennter into a pu urchase optio on agreementt with ed on a refund dable down p payment conttingent upon entitlement milestones. W When the parcel buyers base the entitlements and legal parcel maps are in‐‐place the m aster developer will closee with the SFPUC. osing, the parcel buyers w will close on ttheir parcels with the masster developeer. At Within 2 months of clo parcel buyerss will be purch hasing a fullyy entitled and d legally parceeled interest in the this point in time the p ees from the master deveeloper for thee infrastructure work neceessary property with complettion guarante ewed this deal structure aand timing off the parcel saales with John Wayland, SSenior for the paads. We revie Vice Presiident of BRE Properties, and Mike Kim,, CIO of SIMEEON Propertiees, who agreed with the ttiming and strattegy of engaging and entering into option o agreeements with the parcel b buyers during the entitleme ent process. The benefit o of this deal strategy is thatt it allows thee parcel buyers to provide input in the en ntitlement prrocess and allows all partties to compplete their design docum ments and bu uilding permitting concurrenttly directly after entitlem ments are in place. Pleasse refer to A Appendix D w which identifies this timeline as it relates tto the overalll developmennt schedule. B. TOWNH HOME SALE ndustry profe essionals and the desirabiility of the urrban infill location, Based on our conversaations with in the townhome pad will be sold to a builder as a Super Pad . The masteer developer will provide major ds with all uttilities and rough grading o of the site. TThe number o of lots is small enough in tthat a spine road builder would be willin ng to take dow wn the whole e pad. The bbuyer will theen be able to design the interior of the parrcel as they se ee fit in orderr to maximize e the value off the Site. The townhome parcel consists of 9 94 market rate lots and 233 affordable lo ots (90% AMI). The townhome d is expected d to sell at a a price $22,056,862 ($2277,998 per maarket rate lott and $27,17 78 per Super Pad affordable e lot). These lot prices have been veriffied by Kim H Havens of Wilson Meany SSullivan, David d Best of Shea Homes, H Jamie e Choy of Siggnature Development andd Robert Freeed of SummeerHill Homes.. See below forr key inputs and assumptio ons:

Land Residu ual Potential ‐ Forr‐Sale Townhomes Ratio GENERAL Acres Net Denssity (units/acre) Total Lotss

1,400

$627,500 18,825 31,375

$3 388,250

$58 80,468

3.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0%

$677,700 (20,331) (10,166) $647,200

388,250 $3

$59 96,295

$140 $195,533 23,531 $219,065

$140 $195,533 ‐ $195,533

14,439 $21

$9,413 18,825 12,550 9,413 23,268 6,275 $79,743 $298,807

$ $79,743 $2 275,276

$7 79,743 $29 94,182

$209,165 180,925 $390,090 10,727 3,901 $14,628

$192,693 40,351 233,045 $2 6,409 2,330 $8,739 $0

13,471 $1

$313,436 $224

284,015 $2 $203

$30 07,652

$75,300

$ $46,590

$6 69,656

$647,200 388,736 $258,464

$3 388,250 3 330,605 $ $57,645

$59 96,295 37 77,308 $21 18,987

20% affordablee

REVENUES Base Home Price Average B Averagge Lot Premium Averagge Options/Upgraade Average H Home Price Incentiives/Concession tto Buyer Brokerr Co‐op @ 50% of sales @ Net Reve nues From Reside ential Sales

NON‐FINAN NCING COSTS Hard Costts/square foot Direct Costs ns and Upgrades 75.0% Option Total C Construction Costss Other Cossts Common Area 1.5% Marketting and Sales 3.0% G & A 2.0% Properrty Taxes (speciall assesment distriict) 1.5% Impactt Fees/Permits 3.7% Other SSoft Costs/Contin ngency 1.0% Total O Other Costs 12.7% Total Non n‐Financing Costs FINANCING COSTS Draw (on Non‐Finaancing Costs) Loan D Loan D Draw (on Land) Total Loan Draw 6 Months Interesst Loan Feee Total FFinancing Costs

70.0% 70.0% 5.5% 1.0%

Total Costts (Excluding Land d) Total Costts per Square Foo ot BUILDER PRO OFIT

20% o of Units 1.1

Tottals 5.5 21 117

4.4

Average FFloorplan Square Footage

12.0%

FINISHED LO OT LAND RESIDUA AL Revenu ues Total C Costs (including Builder Profit) FINISHED D LOT PRICE As % off Average Home P Price Per Acrre INFRASTRUC CTURE COSTS ‐ SU UPER PAD TO FINISHED LOT Per Lott SUPER PAD LAND RESIDUAL Per Lot Per Acre AD RESIDUAL VALUE SUPER PA

Product ‐ TH Marrket Rate Affo ordable

38%

15%

38%

5,514,492 $5

$1,2 229,884

$4,67 72,219

$30,000

$ $30,000

$228,464 4,874,424 $4 $21 1,475,635

$ $27,645 $5 589,816 $6 635,827

$18 88,987 $4,03 32,150 $22,11 11,462

C. STUDEN NT HOUSING G PAD “AIR R RIGHTS” SALLE The stude ent housing parcel will be sstructured ass an “air right s” deal and thus will not include the paarking below. To T determine the value off the parcel, Reservoir Beears constructted a land reesidual modeel that drives tow ward a sales price for the finished pad. The studennt housing paarcel consistss of 483 total units (15% affo ordable). The e pad is expeccted to sell at a price of $$59,259 per d door, in‐line w with quoted p prices from Patrrick Kennedy of Panoramicc Interests. TTotal pad valuue is $28,610,,942. See bellow for a sum mmary of key inp puts and assumptions:

Land Residual ‐ Student Housingg Student Housing 3 story RACTERISTICS PRODUCT CHAR Square Feet Density/FAR Parking Spaces per Unit Structure

500 175 0.00

INCOME hly Rental Income e ‐ Blended to In ncluded 15% Affo ordable Average Month Income per Square Foot Potential Gross Income per Yeaar Less Vacanccy Effective Rental Revenue Other Reve nue % Effective Income Other Revenue Total Revenue EXPENSES Operating EExpenses % Reve enue Total Expenses

31% $6,753

NOI

$15,032

Cap Rate

6.0%

Capitalized Valu ue/Unit Sales Prrice

$250,532

BUILDING CONSSTRUCTION COSTTS Hard Costs Construcction Costs/rentaable square foott Total Direct Costs Parking Costs Parking SStructures Total Parkin ng Costs Total Hard Costss Soft Costs % of Hard Costs Soft Costs % Total Soft Costs Financing Costs 65% of hard costs Loan Draw hs) Construction Timing (Month 5.5% of loan draw Construction Interest 1.0% of loan draw Loan Fee Total Financing Costs Total Soft Costs Builder Profit Builder Return

$249 $124,667 No o Parking $0 $124,667 30% $37,400 $81,033 18 $3,343 810 $4,153 $41,553 10% $25,053

Total Costs

$191,273

LAND RESIDUALL ‐ SUPER PAD Capitalized Valu ue/Unit Sales Priice Total Costs Per Unit ‐ Super P Pad Land Residual P % of Revenu ue

$250,532 $ $ $191,273 $59,259 24%

Land Value Captured by Cal Team for Parcell Sale to Studentt Housing Develo oper

$1,911 $3.82 $22,932 5% $21,785 0% $0 $21,785

$ 28 8,610,942

D. COST I.

DEVELLOPMENT CO OST SUMMA ARY

The follo owing table summarizes the key de evelopment costs as co ontemplated in our prop posed developm ment plan. Westwood d Terrace ‐ Cosst Summary

Land Pre‐Development Costs Architectu ure & Engineeriing EIR Processs Legal Fees Admin (Acccounting, etc.)) Communitty Outreach SF Plannin ng Application Fees Due Diligeence Development Fee ($40,00 00/month) Pre‐Develo opment Conting gency (%) Soft Cost A Assumptions Legal & Cl osing Design Draawings Engineerin ng Permits, Fees, & Taxes Marketingg Impact Feees Development Fee (3% of Hard Cost) SC Subtotaal Soft Cost C Contingency (% %)

Development B D Budget Bud dget Tottal $7,4 450,493 Subtotal Land Cost $7,4 450,493

$1 16,483.39 $16,483

$18.87 $ $ $18.87

% o of Total C Cost 3.6 % 3.6 %

00% 4.0 Sub btotal Pre‐Dev Cost

$1,8 848,000 $5 577,500 $1,1 155,000 $1 173,250 $1 173,250 $5 577,500 $2 231,000 $1,0 008,000 $2 229,740 $5,9 973,240

$4,088 $1,278 $2,555 $383 $383 $1,278 $511 $2,230 $508 $13,215

$4.68 $1.46 $2.92 $0.44 $0.44 $1.46 $0.58 $2.55 $0.58 $ $15.12

0.9 % 0.3 % 0.6 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.5 % 0.1 % 2.9 %

00% 4.0 Subtotal Soft Cost

$1,1 100,000 $7,0 040,000 $3,8 850,000 $6,6 600,000 $1,3 320,000 $3,3 300,000 $4,5 504,784 $27,7 714,784 $1,1 108,591 $28,8 823,375

$2,434 $15,575 $8,518 $14,602 $2,920 $7,301 $9,966 $61,316 $2,453 $63,769

$2.79 $17.83 $ $9.75 $ $16.71 $3.34 $8.36 $ $11.41 $ $70.18 $2.81 $ $72.98

0.5 % 3.4 % 1.9 % 3.2 % 0.6 % 1.6 % 2.2 % 13.5 5% 0.5 % 14.1 1%

$245,010 $40,597 $42,544 $608 $608 $329,368 $26,674 $356,043 $433,026 $449,510

$254.93 $ $46.46 $ $44.27 $0.70 $0.70 $381.62 $ $30.53 $4 412.14 $500.25 $5 19.12

Hard Cost Assumptions Hard Cost ‐ Union Resideential (1) 110,,744,638 BKF Infasttructure Estimaate (2) 20,,184,839 Replacemeent Parking Un nder Student Bu uilding (1) 19,,229,976 275,000 Grey Wateer/ Solar Panel 275,000 Communitty Benefits GC Subtotaal $150,7 709,453 Hard Cost Contingency (% %) 00% $12,0 056,756 8.0 Subtotal Hard Cost $162,7 766,209 Subtotal H Hard, Soft & Pre e‐Dev Costs $197,5 562,824 Total Deve elopment Costts $205,0 013,318 (1) See thee summary anaalysis of hard ccosts for a com mplete breakou ut. (2) Does not include the CFD Financingg Proceeds of $ $13,268,588.

$ $/Unit

$//RSF

49.1 1% 9.0 % 8.5 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 73.5 5% 5.9 % 79.4 4% 96.4 4% 100.0%

II. INFRA STRUCTUREE COSTS Reservoir Bears worke ed with Todd Adair, a principal at BKF EEngineers, on n multiple occcasions in ord der to he required in nfrastructure costs associ ated with the developmeent of the Site and accuratelyy estimate th our speciffic product program. p In order to brin ng the Site baack to its nattural grade, tthe developeer will construct a “step‐up” podium parkking garage u underneath thhe multifamily and student housing parcels and use ccut and fill wiith dirt from the existing b berm to fill‐inn the area un nder the tow wnhome parceel and any remaaining gaps. *The parking garage con nstruction coosts are brokken out sepaarately from these infrastruccture costs and are detaiiled in the fo ollowing secttions along w with construcction costs o of the multifamiily buildings.* * The infrastructure costss below includde all other ccosts associatted with prep paring the site as a Super Pad ds including roadways, uttilities, superr pad prep, aand stormwaater managem ment. These cossts are estimaated to total $19M. Soil o on the site iss sandy which h lends itself well to infiltrration zones forr water manaagement. Saan Francisco has historicaally promoted d the use off infiltration zones where po ossible which provide an attractive a alternative to rre‐use system ms which havve high installation and main ntenance cossts. Please see the chaart below forr detailed brreakdown off all infrastru ucture (excludingg the parking structures) n necessary to ttake Site from m current condition to certtified Super P Pads: Westwood d Terrace - Infra astructure Costs Land Area a Inputs 4,585 linear feet for roadway (includes all costs -- lighting, graading, utilities, pavem ment, etc) 1,360 linear feet for roadway without utilitties underneath 20,000 cubic yards of cut c and fill 544,718 square feet for pad p prep 75,000 Square feet for Storm S Water infiltrat ion COST ESTIMATES Hard Costts

Input

Road way w/ all utilities U & Other Pu ublic $1,550 /lin ear ft Wet Utilites Dry Uttilities $250 /lin ear ft Road way w/o utilities $400 /lin ear ft $5 /cubbic yard Cut and Fill Dirt pad d area prep $5 /lannd s.f. Stormwater Infiltration Arrea $20 /lannd s.f. Total Hard H Costs Soft Costss Design ncy Contigen City Feees Total Soft Costs

15% % Hard Costs 25% % Hard Costs 5% % Hard Costs

C TOTAL COSTS % Publicc (available for CF FD Bond Financin ng) % Privatte

Costs

$7,106,750 $ $ $1,146,250 $544,000 $100,000 $ $2,723,589 $ $1,500,000 $13,120,589

road dway (includes all "p public" costs) road dway (includes all "p private" costs) road dway without utilitiess underneath cut and a fill build ding areas require diirt pad infilttration zone (includees approx. 5-feet of excavation e and installlation of drainage gallery to store s runnoff for infiiltration into soils beelow)

$1,968,088 $ $ $3,280,147 $656,029 $ $5,904,265 $1 19,024,854 69.7% incluudes wet utilities, roaadways, and stormw water plus assoc. sofft costs 30.3%

Nottes

III. CFD BO OND FINAN CING CFD bond d funds will be used to finance f the cost of publ ic infrastructture work asssociated witth the developm ment of the Site. Reservo oir Bears conssulted with EEileen Gallagh her and Scott Sollers, Man naging Directors at Stone and Youngberg tto craft the sttructure of thhe land‐secureed financing. Bond fundin ng will m develo oper upon co ompletion off infrastructu ure and the aacceptance o of the be delivered to the master assets byy the associatted public aggency. The CFD bonds aare expected d to producee $14.6M in funds delivered on 3/1/2019 9. Please see below for CFD Bond unde rwriting assumptions and inputs: Costs Inccluded: CFD D bond fundss will finance e all public iinfrastructuree costs at th he Site which are estimated d to total $13 3.3M. Total bond fundin ng will also innclude a 10% debt servicee reserve fund and cost of isssuance bringging the total bonded am mount to $144.6M. Publicc infrastructu ure includes p public roads, strreetlights and d signalization n, water, sew wer and flood control faciliities, and oth her public facilities. These infrastructure ittems will be acquired, ow wned and opeerated by a p public entity upon completion. e of the CFD b bonds is below w the required 3:1 ratio off land value to o funds. The value ure. Once in Structure/Timing: De eveloper will finance and complete th e infrastructu nfrastructure is in‐ hand over to public agenccy at which ppoint he will rreceive the b bond funding.. This place, devveloper will h date is pro ojected to occur on 3/1/20 019. Repayment: Bonds arre to be repaid with speciaal taxes leviedd on propertyy tax bill, whicch will be asssessed on future e property ow wners. The yyield used to calculate th is fee is 6% o of total bond d funds plus aa 10% cushion for f debt cove erage, spread d out over a 30 year perriod. A high her percentagge of fees w will be allocated to the townh home ownerss versus the m multifamily annd student ho ousing properrties. Allocattion is n square foo otage: for evvery $1 psf attributed too townhomees, $0.50 psf is attributeed to based on multifamiily/student ho ousing units. Annual assessment fees rresulting from m these bond ds are estimatted at $2,776 pe er townhome, $1,155 per m multifamily unit, and $6611 per student housing unitt. The effectivve tax rate associated at thiis rate averages 1.44% fo or townhomees and 1.34% % for multifaamily and student housing units u over the e 30 year rep payment periiod. These rrates are well below the maximum alllowed effective rrate of 2% all‐in for residential propertyy. Please see e the tables o on following p page for a dettailed breakd own of CFD B Bond assumptions and inp puts:

A. CFD Bond d Metrics $ $13,268,588 P Public Infrast ructure Costss 10% Debt Service D Reserve Fund and Cost off Issuance $ $14,595,446 T Total Bonded Amount 6.0% Yield Y 30 Years Y 10% Cushion for D C Debt Coverage $1,166,378 Required Ann R nual Paymentt B. Allocation of Fees By Product Type e pe Units Avg s.f. Multiplierr Implied s.f. % of Fe es Product Typ Townhomess 0 1..5 245,7 700 27 7.8% 117 1,400 Multifamilyy 874 4 1..0 395,0 048 44 4.8% 452 Student Hou using 500 0 1..0 241,5 500 27 7.4% 483 C. Assessme ent Fees Product Typ pe Townhomess Multifamilyy Student Hou using

Annual Fee A $2,776 $1,155 $661

Effective e Tax Rate Year 1 30 Year Avgg % 1.44% % 1.57% 1.42% % 1.34% % 1.41% % 1.34% %

IV. HARD COSTS Hard Costts are the single biggest co ost component of our proo forma and tthe Cal Team wanted to eensure that we were w as accurate as possible with this very importaant input. C Cal’s hard cosst assumption ns are based on the detailed Johnstone M Moyer cost esstimate that w was prepared d based on o our specific project unit counts (se ee Appendix E). attributess, location, drrawings and u Johnstone e Moyer came highly recommended byy both Jackie Safier at Prom metheus and d Nick Podell o of the Podell Co ompany. Theyy are well kn nown in the developmennt communityy for their aaccurate hard d cost estimatess. Mike Smith h at Johnstone Moyer spen nt considerabble time detailing the costs for our prop posed project an nd breaking them t out in a way that we w could seggment costs b between the different product types und der considerattion. Due to th he different product type es proposed,, Cal sought additional ccost input daata from specialist contracto ors. Cal workked with Nibbi Brothers General G Conttracting for input on thee multifamilyy over concrete podium, stud dent housingg and the concrete parkinng garage co osts. We recceived inform mation from Barrry Swenson Builders B on multifamily m an nd student h ousing costs. We also reeached out to o and received p pricing input from Signatu ure Homes, Sh hea Homes annd SummerH Hill Homes to better underrstand townhom me pricing. Th hese hard co ost estimatess are compileed in the beelow summarry. In cases when numbers did not corre espond betw ween quotes, Cal considereed relative areas of expertise to determine 83

weightinggs for our finaal inputs. Oth herwise, we u used averagess prices. The net result off our efforts is that our pro‐fo orma hard costs inputs are e conservative e in that theyy include both h high and low w quotes. Cal underrstands that the t constructtion industry is currently coming out o of one of thee worst perio ods of recession in memorab ble history and that constrruction pricinng is currentlyy at relativelyy low levels aand is likely to escalate. e To o account forr this, we grrow our hardd costs as indicated in th he model. TThis is especiallyy important giiven the long disposition aand entitlemeent period before construcction can begin.

V. THE U NION FACTO OR A major consideration c n for hard costs is the facct that this iss a City of Saan Francisco property. Seeveral industry professionals p o the City’s ppurchase agrreement will mandate thaat the reminded us that part of developm ment be built by union con ntractors. Th his requiremeent creates a substantial increase to project hard costss and in returrn results in a significantly reduced resi dual land value for the SFPUC. All of the Cal team’s h hard cost estimates were provided bassed on an all‐‐union projecct. We have heard eports from d developers on n the financiaal impact of tthis requirem ment, the valu ues ranged frrom a varying re 15% to 25 5% premium placed on haard costs. Given the maggnitude of haard costs in aa developmen nt pro

forma, this is a very siignificant pre emium and haas a meaninggful impact on n the pro forrma of each o of our product tyypes. Given the e above inform mation, it is ccritical that th he SFPUC cleaarly indicate the Union requirement in n their RFP docum ments. In spe eaking with in ndustry professsionals, Cal bbelieves that mandating u union develop pment ainly reduce may redu uce the pool o of interested developers and will cert the land valu ue that the SSFPUC receives in disposition. E. EQUITTY From ourr conversations with REITTs, pension fu und advisors,, and real esstate funds, C Cal gained a deep understan nding of the e equity marketts and how th his deal woul d be underwritten. We haave concluded d that apartmen nt REITs, such as Avalon Baay, Equity Ressidential, andd BRE, and weell established d developers, such as Prometheus, Sares Regis, Urban n Housing Gro oup, and a soolid equity paartner would be able to h handle ment deal of tthis size. an apartm Not only do Apartmen nts REITs have e significant ccost synergiees at the operating level, b but they also o have the greate est access to the cheapestt capital. Both h Avalon Bay and BRE stated that they do not use deebt to fund theirr projects. To o take down tthe land and fund all of thhe constructio would on costs, thee companies w use cash and their eq quity line of credit, c which based on a conversation n with John W Wayland at B BRE is 0 basis points over LIBOR. All three REITTS that we sp poke with aree long term ho olders currently priced at 150 ot sell properrties unless th he asset no lo onger contrib uting to the ccompany’s po ortfolio. (App pendix and do no B).

Typicaal Deal Structure Untrennded Yield to Cosst Unleveered IRR Hold Period P

Avalon Bay

Equity Residential R

BRE Propertiees

All caash 5.5% - 5.8% 5 8-11% % Long teerm

All caash or JV 5.5% % -6.0% 8- 11% Lonng term

All cash 5.5% -6.0% 9- 11% Long term

o the curren nt market dyynamics, penssion fund addvisors and reeal estate fu unds both waant to Because of invest in San Francisco o and would aggressivelyy underwrite this transacttion to compete with the large apartmen nt REITS . We spoke with M Morgan Lingle e at JP Morga n who said th hat they havee both a $20 b billion core fund d and a $4 billion value fun nd that mightt compete foor this deal, however due tto the entitleement risk it wou uld probably end up goingg into to theirr value fund. At Invesco, Chris Cole staated that theey just raised a $ $250 million vvalue fund, w which is made e up of variouus pension fu unds and instiitutional inveestors, and are raaising anothe er $250 million to add it. C Chris also menntioned that Invesco could d also do a on ne off asset leve el joint venturre structure w with institutio onal money. This structurre would requ uire a low levverage amount and a long term hold. (App pendix B).

JP Morgan M Compaany Type

Fuund

Typicaal Deal Structure Untrennded Yield to Cosst Levereed IRR Hold Period P

Max LTC - JV 6.000% 20% +, 2x 2 Multiple Built and a Sell

USAA Insurance and Pension Funds Max LTC - JV 6.00% 15-20% Built and Sell

The Carlylle Group

Invesco

Funnd

Pension Fund Advisor

Max LT C - JV 6.000% 20% +; 2xx Multiple Built and Sell

Max LTC - JV 55.75% -6.00% 17.00% Built and Sell

II. EQUIT Y CONCLUS ION CAL concludes that th his project would w have significant intterest from eequity partneers. Based on our nd USAA currrent underw writing proposal’s current retturns, our prroject is mosst in‐line witth Invesco an ers. Chris Cole, Director of Acquisitio ons at Invescco, stated th hat he woulld be significcantly paramete interested d in this projject. He could raise pension fund equuity or place this project in Invesco’s value fund. F. DEBT Based on conversation ns with comm mercial banks, debt placeement brokerrs, and life companies, Caal has developed d a deep und derstanding of o the debt markets. m Whiile the debt markets werre completelyy shut down from 2009 to 20 010, they are e starting to o open back upp. Apartmentt developmen nt projects arre the most attractive of the product type es, because tthey have no take out riskk. Since they provide ratees and structuress below the market, Fred ddie Mac an nd Fannie Maay own apprroximately 80% of multiffamily projects. In addition, w while underwriting standarrds have rem ained tight, ccurrent pricing is very attraactive at approxximately 250 b basis points o over LIBOR for constructionn loans and 4490 basis for p permanent lo oans. Michael Shin S at Bank of America stated that outside o of N New York Cityy, San Franciisco is the ho ottest apartmen nt market in the country. He is curren ntly working on four construction loaans for multiffamily rental pro ojects with TM MG in San Frrancisco. As ssuch, he has a solid grasp of the market and stated d that this proje ect would be very compettitive. While aall lenders w ould compette for its consstruction loan n, the project’s pricing would d be priced slightly above market. Du e to its largee size, this loaan would pro obably be syndicaated with thrree to four other lenders. ((Appendix B).. I.

CONSTTRUCTION FFINANCING

Accordingg to Michael Shinn at Ban nk of Americaa, a six year l oan (4 year iinitial term w with two exteension options) construction c loan would be sized bassed on a maxximum Loan to Value (“LLTV”) ratio off 65% based on the "As Stab bilized" value e of the Proje ect as containned in the ap ppraisal engaaged by Bankk, and complyingg with all reggulatory requirements (“Appraisal”); M Maximum Loan n to Cost (“LTTC”) of 65% b based on the pu urchase price e and qualifie ed closing co osts; Maximuum 9.09% Deebt Yield on stabilized NO OI (as establishe ed in an apprraisal). The tw wo extension options are subject to th he following cconditions: 1)) debt yield of 9.09%, 2) Prop perty would adhere to a 6 65% “as‐is” LLTV, 3) Straight line amorttization of 1.5% of p monthlyy. This recourrse loan has the followin ng recourse: 100% the principal balance each year, paid 88

principal aand 100% intterest and carry guaranty, to decrease to 50% princcipal guarantyy with a certiificate of occupaancy, with a ffurther decre ease to 25% p principal recoourse once th he project reaaches a 7.5% % debt yield, with the loan converting to nonrecourse e at a 9.09% % debt yield. Michael indiicated that p pricing would like ely be LIBOR + 2.50% and d a 1.0% origination fee. TThis loan would be secureed by first deeed of trust on the t Project, assignment of o rents on leases, fixturee filing on project and U UCC filings, an nd an assignment of all planss. CING II. CONSTTRUCTION TTO PERMAN ENT FINANC n understanding of the current constru uction to perm manent financing, Kevin Reedford, Direcctor of To gain an Debt Placcement at HFF, provided u us with the terms of a lifee company co onstruction tto permanentt loan that he re ecently placed d. The loan size was a 65% % loan to val ue based on 10% debt yieeld with the aability to upsize the loan amo ount to 70% lo oan to value upon stabiliz ation. The loaan term has o options of up to 15 o year interesst only period d of construcction/lease‐u up. Upon stab bilization, thee loan Years, inccluding a two amortizess based on a 30 year term m. The interest rate for thhis loan was 4.9%, howevver current m market rates can change by 25‐50 basis points depen nding on connstruction tim me‐line. Thee recourse fo or the on was for completion andd 100% repayyment, howevver, they movved to project was lender’s original positio ntee. Such gu uarantees go away upon sstabilization. 25% repayyment guaran CAL spoke e with Jory H Halperin at Northwestern Mutual to reeceive an inittial quote forr a constructiion to permanen nt loan for our o proposal. The sizing of o the loan w was approxim mately 60% LLTC at a 1.35 5 debt service co overage based on today’s rent and exp penses. The lloan has a to otal term of ggreater than seven years, a three year construction c period and a permanennt period off 5 to 10 yeears. During the however upo n stabilization the loan w will amortize b based construction period, the loan is intterest‐only, h e loan has an n interest rate e of 5.50% annd a completion guarantee. The positivves of on a 30 year term. The mable on salle, and will h have a this loan are that it is a fixed rate up front forr entire hold period, assum onstruction period, single lender. The negaatives of this loan are thatt it has a high er interest raate over its co els, and significant prepaym ment penaltiees. lower loan to cost leve III. HUD F INANCING UD(d)(4) proggram is desiignated for the t new connstruction off market ratte and afforrdable FHA’s HU multifamiily rental hou using contain ning five or more m units. A According to Dennis Sidb bury at North hMarq Capital, th he constructiion‐to‐permaanent loan would be sizedd based on tthe lesser of a) maximum m 83% loan to co ost; or b) a m minimum DSCR R of 1.2x. Th his loan is a fuully amortizin ng 40 year loaan with no baalloon payment. Dennis state ed that curre ent interest rates are 4.225%, which iss based on 3 3.70% plus M MIP of 0.55%. This option is highly attractive because of its high LTTV. The downsides of thiss type of finaancing are the riigorous application process and long process timee, potentially 8 months, th hat it takes tto get approved. Also, the interest rate is higher than Bank of Amerrica’s constru uction loan qu uote.

IV. TAX EX XEMPT BON ND AND TAXX CREDIT FIN NANCING Another ffinancing optiion available is through Taax Exempt Bo nd Financing.. According tto Doug Childers at HFF, proje ects may quaalify for low interest rate e tax exempt bond financcing by designating 20% o of the units at 80% 8 of the area a median income. Additionally, a property thaat is financed d with tax exxempt bonds, au utomatically q qualifies to ap pply for 4% taax credit equitty financing u under the fed deral governm ment’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LLIHTC) Prograam. This pr ogram, admiinistered by the Californiia Tax ocation Comm mittee (CTCAC), is effectivvely equity thaat subsidizes new construction projectts that Credit Allo include an n affordable h housing comp ponent thus rreducing the ddeveloper’s eequity capital requirementt. 4% tax cre edits cover approximatelyy 30% of eligible developm ment costs an nd ONLY come with tax‐exxempt bond finaancing. Therrefore, a borrrower will haave higher b ond proceed ds, because tthere is less LIHTC equity invvolved. The do ownsides of 4 4% tax creditss are that theey can result iin 6‐8 month time lags and d that they requ uire either 40% of the unitts at 60% AMI or 20% at 550%, which haas a significan nt negative im mpact on NOI. 9 9% tax credits cover appro oximately 70% % of the eligiible developm ment costs in the form of LIHTC equity sp pread over a 10 or 15 ye ear period. Lenders size permanent debt based on stabilized d NOI (assumingg below markket rents) and the gap ne eeded to covver developm ment costs is provided by LIHTC equity. Therefore, T sin nce roughly 70% 7 of the de evelopment ccosts are in tthe form of LLIHTC equity,, your permanen nt debt will be b lower. The e downsides of 9% tax creedits are thaat they can reesult in 6‐8 m month time lags, the applicatiion process iss extremely co ompetitive, w which makes tthem hard to o get. V. DEBT C CONCLUSIO ON n of the abovve financing o options, Cal bbelieves that the conventtional constru uction Through aan evaluation loan is th he most app propriate con nstruction fin nancing for tthis project. Based on conversationss with developerrs and equity investors, the Bank of Am merica loan is consistent w with how they would underrwrite the projecct. For examp ple, Mike Kim, CIO at SIMEEON Commerccial Propertiees, stated that a LTC of 65% % and interest raate of 250 basis points is aa great loan and makes thi s project veryy attractive. G. INVESSTMENT RETTURNS I.

RESER VOIR BEARSS PROPOSED D DEVELOPM MENT

CAL unde erwrote the project utilizing a build and a sell upo n stabilizatio on strategy. Based on Baank of America’ss loan propossal provided tto Cal by Micchael Shinn (SSee Appendixx B), our quo ote included aa 65% LTC (net o of land sales and the CFD Financing), 2 250 basis poi nts over LIBO OR, and a fou ur year initial term with two extensions options. o Base ed on the forward LIBOR curve, we in ncreased thee rate to an all‐in‐ interest raate of 5.00%.

Westwo ood Terrace ‐ Sources and Use es Source es of Funds Debt Equity ds Total SSources of Fund

T Total PSF % $129,016 6,912 $ $261.35 65% % 69,124 4,906 140.03 35% % $198,141 1,818 $ $401.38 100% %

Uses of Funds Adjustted Land Basis Pre‐Deevelopment Cossts Soft Co ost Hard C Cost Interesst + Loan Fee CFD Fi nancing Proceeeds Uses of Funds Total U

T Total $7,450 0,493 5,973 3,240 28,823 3,375 162,766 6,209 6,397,089 (13,268,588) 1,818 $198,141

PSF % $15.09 4% % 12.10 3% % 58.39 15% % 329.72 82% % 3% % 12.96 % (26.88) ‐7% $ $401.38 100% %

For this scenario, we analyzed a build and sell upon stabilizzation strateggy. As such, we are sellin ng the opers and value fund inveestors property in year 8. This approach is consistentt with most oof the develo PM, USAA, Invvesco, and No orthwestern Mutual all wanted that that we have spokken with. For example, JP e a levered IR RR in the mid to high teens. The cap ra te is based on 100 basis p points over cu urrent to achieve cap rates of 4.50% for multifamily p projects in San n Francisco. ((Appendix B).

Westwood Terrace ‐ Fiinancial Analysis Develop and SSell 3/31/20 014 Yeaar 8

Start Daate Sale Year Unlevered IRR Unlevered Profit Unlevered Equity Mulltiple

12..0% $95,633,610 1.3 38x

Levered d IRR Levered d Profit Levered d Equity Multip ple

16..1% $76,872,40 01 1.5 56x

Yield on Cost (Stabili zated) Yield on Cost (Un‐Trended) Exit Asssumptions Gross SSale Price Cap Ra te Selling Costs

7..5% 6..0% $271,608,50 06 5..5% 1..3%

Debt Assumptions Loan Tyype Loan Am mount Loan to o Cost Start Daate Bank Raate (Fixed) Amortizzation Interes t Only (Years) Debt Paaydown Term

BOA Construction B $129,016,912 6 65% 3/31/20 018 5..0% 1.5% of prin. annuaally 4 yeaars At s ale 6 yeaars

The untre ended yield to o cost for our proposal is 6 6.0%. This is bbased on todaay’s rents, inccluding the paarking revenue aand 20% BMR R units for the e multifamily and 15% BM MR units for sttudent housing, both at 60% of AMI. On the expense e side, we inccluded the in ncrease of ex pense for the CFD financcing and a vacancy factor of 5.00% on all rental revenue. The total cost is basedd on our hard d cost constrruction quotees and pre‐development and soft costs as of today. We e have also neetted our certtified pad salees against our land purchase price and the e proceeds fro om the CFD b bond financin g against ourr infrastructurre costs.

Westwoo od Terrace ‐ Yield to Cost An nalysis

Adjusteed Land Basis Total Hard, Soft, and Pre‐Development CFD Fin nancing Proceeeds Total Co ost NOI Vacanccy Factor at 5% % NOI at 9 95% occupanccy

Untre ended As of Today $7 ,450,493 185 ,747,546 (13 ,268,588) $179 ,929,451

SStabilized in O October‐21 $7,450,493 203,959,913 (13,268,588)) $ $198,141,818

$11 ,305,949 (565,297) $10 ,740,651

$15,674,599 (783,877)) $14,890,722

6..0%

Yield to o Cost

7.5%

H. DEVE LOPMENT TTIMELINE We drew on inputs fro om the SFPUC C, the SFPUC’’s consultant,, the Directorr of the SF Reeal Estate Divvision, m Mary Murp phy and Marggot Bradish off Cox & Castlee, and numerrous private ssector legal persspectives from developerrs and contrractors to esstablish a de etailed and tthorough esttimated deveelopment tim meline attached as Appendix D. This complete timelin ne includes a a detailed breakdown off activities sstarting at th he internal SSFPUC dispositio on approval p process through the end o of constructioon and absorrption. This ttimeline form ms the basis of tiiming for ourr financial mo odel and key cash flow acttivities are lin nked to the aassociated daates in the timeline. It is clearr when revie ewing the tim meline that there are maany variables and concurrrent activities and multipartyy approvals that t must takke place in order o to havee the develop pment occur as contemplated. Displayingg the develo opment time eline in this way visuallly demonstraates the com mplexity and d risk associated d with gettin ng a developm ment plan off this size ap proved and iimplemented d in San Fran ncisco. The risk mitigated m by completing these t entitlem ment steps iss rewarded b by the reduceed competitio on for new product in San Fraancisco given the complexxities illustrateed in the timeeline. The fact that we are p t projecting an almost 8 ye ear timeframee from the beginning of tthe SFPUC intternal dispositio on approval process (August 2012) to th he end of connstruction (April 2020) is aa testament tto the difficulty in developingg in San Franccisco. And while this duraation may seeem extremelyy long to outssiders, urphy and Margot Bradish, two of Saan Francisco’’s top real eestate develo opment attorrneys, Mary Mu commentted that the schedule was “aggressive b but realistic”. It is of utm most importaance to underrstand how th hese multiparrty approvals take place so o that projectt level financing decisions and d financial pe erformance m measures can be establisheed accordingly. Without aa firm nding of the developmentt timeline, critical financinng milestone and project level perform mance understan measurem ments will be inaccurate and will hinder a developerr from obtain ning debt or eequity financin ng for their project. 93

11. CONCLUSIO ON In conclussion, participaating in the 2012 Golden SShovel Compeetition has un ndoubtedly beeen one of th he most challlenging and ccertainly mosst rewarding aaspects of ou r time at Cal. Each member of our team m has been overrwhelmed at how much w we have learne ed and how eeager and helpful professio onals in the industry h have been to facilitating ou ur learning. d like to conclude our pape er by thanking the organizzers, judges, ssponsors and NAIOP for giving We would us the opportunity to p participate in this incredib ble event. Eacch member of our team feeels very fortu unate een part of th his process an nd we look fo orward to “pa ying it forward” in years to come. GO to have be BEARS!!!!

APPENDICES

A. MARKET OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS

RESERVOIR BEARS BALBOA RESERVOIR STRATEGIC MARKET ANALYSIS AND POSITIONING FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BALBOA RESERVOIR SITE IN SAN FRANCISCO, CA

APRIL 20, 2012

PREPARED FOR: SFPUC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PREPARED BY: FREDERICK BAYLES, CHRIS BROWN, MICAH BURGER, DAN D’ORAZI, STEVE O’CONNELL Special Thanks to The Concord Group

NOTE: Accompanying data, exhibits and analysis are solely for the purpose of the 2012 NAIOP Golden Shovel project and are not authorized for distribution. 1

TABLE OF O CONTE ENTS I.

MACRO A -ECON NOMIC CONT TEXT 1 Markeet Area Delinea ation Map 2 Emplo oyment Trendss 3 Demog graphics Overv view 4 Comm muting Patternss 5 Lifesty yle Segmentatio on Analysis

II.

FOR R-RENT RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS 1 Historrical Apartmen nt Market Perfo ormance 2 Curreent Inventory 3 Curreent Inventory Map M 4 Amenity and Servicee Profile pply 5 Projeccted Future Sup 6 Deman nd Overview 7 Supply y vs. Demand

III. FOR-SALE RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS 1 Historical Home Closings and Price 2 Current Inventory 3 Current Inventory Map 4 Resale Nodes 5 Demand Overview 6 Supply vs. Demand

IV. STUDENT HOUSING ANALYSIS 1 Market Area Map 2 Student Demographics - CCSF 3 Student Demographics - SFSU 4 Student Housing Demand

RETAIL ANALYSIS 1 Historical Retail Market Performance

VI. OFFICE ANALYSIS 1 Historical Office Market Performance

VII. SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 1 Strategic Product Menu 2 Product Positioning – For Rent 3 Product Positioning – For Sale 4 Land Residual Estimates for Potential Product Types

MACRO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

EXHIBIT I-1 MARKET AREA DELINEATION MAP SAN FRANCISCO AND PENINSULA MARCH 2012

Residential Market Areas The red line represents the Competitive Market Area ("CMA"), the source of competitive supply, defined as the City of San Francisco and North San Mateo County. The blue line represents the Primary Market Area ("PMA"), the geographic source of demand, this area is defined by the counties of San Mateo and San Francisco. Balboa Reservoir

Core Commercial Market Area Source of Competitive Supply Balboa Reservoir

1 Mile Radius

Sources: Google Maps; The Concord Group

Market Area Map: RegLoc

.5 Mile Radius

EXHIBIT I-2 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES 1996 THROUGH 2016 Ann. Growth 11-'16 '05-'10 % #

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Annual Employment (000s) 2005 2006 2007 2008

Professional & Business Services 166.6 Education & Health Services 78.0 Leisure & Hospitality 92.8 Construction 27.1 Government 111.8 Manufacturing 59.6 Financial Activities 85.6 Wholesale Trade 32.8 Retail Trade 74.7 Other Services (except Public Admin.) 33.3 Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities 55.1 Information 30.1 Natural Resources & Mining 0.4

173.8 81.8 97.8 31.0 111.1 60.5 86.9 33.0 78.2 35.5 57.1 33.2 0.4

180.6 85.6 99.7 34.1 110.0 61.6 89.0 32.1 81.3 36.5 57.8 38.3 0.4

189.8 86.3 101.8 36.5 112.7 59.9 90.2 30.6 83.5 36.4 55.7 47.3 0.3

207.0 82.2 104.0 38.5 117.7 58.4 92.0 29.7 86.5 36.5 56.3 62.7 0.1

194.2 82.2 104.0 39.9 116.9 53.0 93.1 28.5 85.9 36.3 53.2 56.3 0.2

169.8 82.1 100.6 37.1 119.3 46.4 86.0 26.3 81.5 34.7 46.6 46.9 0.2

159.2 83.7 99.7 35.5 118.6 42.2 80.6 24.7 79.7 33.6 44.0 43.1 0.2

158.2 84.7 101.6 34.0 117.3 41.5 78.1 23.8 78.5 32.7 43.0 40.3 0.2

167.0 85.4 103.7 32.8 119.6 40.2 78.6 23.5 79.1 32.8 41.6 37.6 0.1

176.1 87.6 107.6 35.2 122.0 41.2 79.7 24.1 79.5 33.1 40.3 35.8 0.2

185.0 89.7 111.6 37.4 123.7 41.5 80.2 24.5 80.6 34.4 38.9 37.2 0.2

190.9 91.6 113.9 36.7 125.1 40.2 78.9 24.2 80.1 35.5 38.3 38.7 0.2

179.9 91.6 109.1 28.9 121.7 36.0 71.7 22.1 74.4 34.1 36.0 37.3 0.2

181.4 91.4 109.9 26.4 121.4 35.2 69.3 21.5 72.9 33.9 35.0 36.6 0.2

186.2 92.4 111.6 25.2 120.5 35.6 68.3 21.8 71.5 33.5 34.8 36.9 0.2

191.7 94.3 113.6 25.6 120.2 36.3 69.4 22.2 71.9 33.8 34.9 37.5 0.2

200.3 97.5 117.6 26.7 121.5 36.7 72.0 22.3 72.9 34.3 34.8 38.4 0.2

211.3 102.0 122.1 28.0 124.0 37.1 75.4 22.5 74.0 35.3 35.2 39.3 0.2

219.0 105.3 125.2 28.8 126.3 37.0 77.7 22.8 74.8 36.0 35.9 39.9 0.2

223.0 107.2 127.1 29.2 127.5 36.6 78.7 22.9 75.0 36.2 36.1 40.2 0.2

1.7% 1.4% 1.2% -4.3% 0.3% -2.6% -2.5% -1.8% -1.6% 0.7% -3.4% -0.5% 5.2%

3.7% 3.0% 2.6% 3.0% 1.1% 0.5% 2.9% 1.1% 1.0% 1.6% 0.8% 1.7% 1.6%

Total Non-Farm (000)

880.5 32.5

907.0 26.5

931.1 24.1

971.7 40.5

943.8 -27.9

877.6 -66.2

844.8 -32.8

833.9 -10.9

842.0 8.1

862.3 20.3

885.0 22.7

894.3 9.2

842.9 -51.4

835.2 -7.7

838.4 3.3

851.7 13.3

875.3 23.6

906.4 31.1

928.9 22.5

940.1 11.2

-0.2%

2.3%

3.8%

3.0%

2.7%

4.4%

-2.9%

-7.0%

-3.7%

-1.3%

1.0%

2.4%

2.6%

1.0%

-5.7%

-0.9%

0.4%

1.6%

2.8%

3.6%

2.5%

1.2%

Cumulative Loss:

-6.6%

Employment Industry

1996

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

% MSA Employment Shift Share 2011 2016 Nominal %

San Francisco and San Mateo County

847.9

Y/Y Change (000) % Change

1,200

101.6

22% 11% 13% 3% 14% 4% 8% 3% 9% 4% 4% 4% 0%

24% 11% 14% 3% 14% 4% 8% 2% 8% 4% 4% 4% 0%

100%

1.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% -0.8% -0.4% 0.2% -0.2% -0.5% -0.1% -0.3% -0.1% 0.0%

6.8% 3.5% 1.6% 3.5% -5.7% -8.5% 2.7% -6.0% -6.4% -3.5% -7.4% -2.7% -3.5%

2011 San Francisco and San Mateo County Employment

10.0%

1,100

36.9 14.8 15.6 4.0 7.0 0.9 10.4 1.2 3.5 2.7 1.3 3.3 0.0

8.0% 4% 4%

1,000

22%

6.0% 900

4.0% Employees (000)

800

2.0%

700

600

11%

0.0% 4%

500

-2.0% 13% 14%

400

-4.0% 300

Professional & Business Services

-6.0% 200 -8.0%

100 0

-10.0% 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year Total Non-Farm Employment Note: All employment figures represent year end Sources: Moody's Economy.com; The Concord Group

Employment TrendsExhibit

Total Non-Farm Employment Y/Y Change

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Education & Health Services Leisure & Hospitality Construction Government Manufacturing Financial Activities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Other Services (except Public Admin.) Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities Information

EXHIBIT I-3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW 9-COUNTY BAY AREA MARCH 2012 9-County Bay Area Remaining PMA Counties Subject Site Market Area General Information Population ('11) Households ('11) % of PMA/Bay Area Average Household Size ('11) Annual HH Growth Rate ('11-'16) Average Annual Households Added % of PMA/Bay Area Median HH Income ('11) Above/Below PMA/Bay Area Annual Income Growth Rate ('11-'16) Household Breakdown ('11) 1 Person 2 Person 3+ Person Age Breakdown ('11) Median Age 2011 Less than 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Income Breakdown ('11) Under $50K $50K to $75K $75K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K to $200K $200K to $500K $500K+

1 Mile Radius

San Francisco

60,768 18,777 3% / 1% 3.24 0.5% 86 2% / 0% $80,544 7% / 8% 0.5%

824,810 341,468 57% / 13% 2.42 1.2% 4,187 79% / 19% $69,347 -8% / -7% 0.5%

257,007 83,122 14% / 3% 3.09 0.4% 298 6% / 1% $75,671 0% / 2% 0.5%

San Francisco

1,081,817 424,590 71% / 17% 2.55 1.1% 4,485 85% / 20% $70,585 -6% / -5% 0.5%

725,954 256,990 43% / 10% 2.82 0.4% 1,061 20% / 5% $84,148 12% / 13% 0.4%

824,810 341,468 57% / 13% 2.42 1.2% 4,187 79% / 19% $69,347 -8% / -7% 0.5%

% Total

145,955 127,596 151,039

34% 30% 36%

62,648 80,372 113,970

24% 31% 44%

128,825 104,736 107,907

38% 31% 32%

191,473 185,108 221,877

32% 31% 37%

462,025 604,702 906,319

23% 31% 46%

653,498 789,810 1,128,196

25% 31% 44%

38 17,544 9,793 8,931 8,210 7,484 4,334 4,471

29% 16% 15% 14% 12% 7% 7%

39 177,168 175,274 141,904 114,960 96,589 58,811 60,104

21% 21% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7%

39 76,290 37,672 39,736 38,100 31,641 18,572 14,996

30% 15% 15% 15% 12% 7% 6%

40 253,458 212,946 181,640 153,060 128,230 77,383 75,100

23% 20% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7%

39 220,362 96,974 108,763 111,556 90,130 51,448 46,721

30% 13% 15% 15% 12% 7% 6%

39 177,168 175,274 141,904 114,960 96,589 58,811 60,104

21% 21% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7%

39 397,530 272,248 250,667 226,516 186,719 110,259 106,825

26% 18% 16% 15% 12% 7% 7%

37 1,840,445 783,425 826,133 848,694 663,549 370,769 316,512

33% 14% 15% 15% 12% 7% 6%

38 2,237,975 1,055,673 1,076,800 1,075,210 850,268 481,028 423,337

31% 15% 15% 15% 12% 7% 6%

5,437 3,349 2,719 3,980 1,591 1,380 320

29% 18% 14% 21% 8% 7% 2%

127,492 55,877 42,729 55,789 24,904 27,623 7,054

37% 16% 13% 16% 7% 8% 2%

25,280 15,895 14,378 17,529 5,763 3,742 535

30% 19% 17% 21% 7% 5% 1%

152,772 71,772 57,107 73,318 30,667 31,365 7,589

36% 17% 13% 17% 7% 7% 2%

71,500 43,215 37,660 51,020 21,619 25,131 6,845

28% 17% 15% 20% 8% 10% 3%

127,492 55,877 42,729 55,789 24,904 27,623 7,054

37% 16% 13% 16% 7% 8% 2%

198,992 99,092 80,389 106,809 46,523 52,754 13,899

33% 17% 13% 18% 8% 9% 2%

644,115 352,379 283,825 370,146 145,331 146,657 30,593

33% 18% 14% 19% 7% 7% 2%

843,107 451,471 364,214 476,955 191,854 199,411 44,492

33% 18% 14% 19% 7% 8% 2%

61% 113% 120% 119% 111% 85% 55% 43%

$45,219 $85,316 $83,045 $76,343 $68,093 $44,934 $36,575 $25,604

65% 123% 120% 110% 98% 65% 53% 37%

$45,123 $79,109 $87,303 $88,361 $81,527 $52,971 $38,848 $31,053

60% 105% 115% 117% 108% 70% 51% 41%

$45,190 $84,218 $83,976 $79,335 $71,408 $46,863 $37,029 $26,692

64% 119% 119% 112% 101% 66% 52% 38%

$45,341 $84,956 $97,078 $99,234 $91,962 $62,723 $45,231 $36,398

54% 101% 115% 118% 109% 75% 54% 43%

$45,219 $85,316 $83,045 $76,343 $68,093 $44,934 $36,575 $25,604

65% 123% 120% 110% 98% 65% 53% 37%

$45,276 $85,194 $89,420 $88,527 $79,812 $52,938 $40,717 $30,532

60% 113% 119% 117% 106% 70% 54% 41%

$40,568 $71,488 $87,570 $92,597 $83,480 $54,041 $39,794 $31,675

55% 96% 118% 125% 112% 73% 54% 43%

$41,395 $74,454 $87,970 $91,774 $82,715 $53,817 $40,017 $31,404

56% 100% 118% 123% 111% 72% 54% 42%

38% 122,182 44% / 8%

% Total

48% 275,598 100% / 19%

(1) Competitive Market Area (CMA) defined as the City of San Francisco and North San Mateo County cities; Primary Market Area (PMA) defined as San Mateo and San Francisco Counties. Refer to Exhibit I-1 for market area delineation map Sources: The Concord Group; Claritas; 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Demo Summary:Demos

7,200,291 2,571,504 100% 2.80 0.9% 22,580 100% $74,511 100% 0.5%

21% 28% 52%

61% 153,416 56% / 11%

5,649,527 1,973,046 -- / 77% 2.86 0.9% 17,312 -- / 77% $74,293 -1% / 0% 0.5%

1,550,764 598,458 100% / 23% 2.59 0.9% 5,267 100% / 23% $75,356 -- / 1% 0.5%

17,130 22,860 43,132

42% 170,332 62% / 12%

Total Bay Area

38% 31% 32%

61% 48,150 17% / 3%

% Total

Remaining Bay Area

128,825 104,736 107,907

38% 122,182 44% / 8%

PMA (1)

20% 27% 53%

Data not avail by Radius na na na / na

% Total

San Mateo

% Total

Owner Housing ('09) % Owner Owner HHs % of PMA/Bay Area

CMA (1)

$48,987 $90,997 $96,294 $95,475 $89,180 $68,250 $44,418 $34,779

% Total

CMA Submarkets North San Mateo County

3,700 5,149 9,929

Income by Age ('11) 15 to 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 85 85+

PMA Counties

% Total

60% 1,167,594 -- / 81%

% Total

57% 1,443,192 100%

EXHIBIT I-4 COMMUTING PATTERNS COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA 2009 Subject Site Zip Code (94112)

San Francisco Submarket Place of Work San Francisco South San Francisco Oakland Daly City San Jose Burlingame Los Angeles San Mateo Redwood City Hayward All Other Locations Total:

# 19,256 1,233 1,101 655 605 603 477 410 312 288 8,719 33,659

% 57% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 26% 100%

North San Mateo County Submarket

Commuting Patterns:Submarkets City

# 204,725 11,031 8,148 6,458 4,966 4,988 4,070 3,961 3,793 3,682 85,281 341,103

% 60% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 25% 100%

Place of Work San Francisco S. San Francisco Oakland San Jose Burlingame San Mateo Los Angeles Palo Alto Berkeley Mountain View Other Locs.

# 245,355 17,535 13,872 9,272 9,230 6,868 6,797 6,452 4,676 4,410 129,247 453,714

% 54% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 28% 100%

Competitive Market Area Place of Work San Francisco S. San Francisco Burlingame Daly City San Mateo Redwood City Oakland San Jose San Bruno Pacifica Other Locs. Total:

Source: LEHD Census; The Concord Group

Place of Work San Francisco Oakland S. San Francisco San Jose Palo Alto Los Angeles Berkeley Burlingame Mountain View San Mateo Other Locs. Total:

# 40,630 9,387 5,269 5,207 3,186 2,965 2,841 2,814 2,537 1,949 35,826 112,611

% 36% 8% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 32% 100%

Total:

EXHIBIT I-5 LIFESTYLE SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS USA, CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO/SAN MATEO COUNTIES, COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA AND CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MARCH 2012

• The table below illustrates the prevalence of various lifestyle segments in the target market area and selected other markets. The lifestyle segments represent "PRIZM" cohorts as defined by Claritas, a prominent provider of demographic data. Each of the cohor demographically and behaviorally distinct types, or "segments," with unique combinations of socioeconomic status, likes, dislikes, lifestyles, purchase behavior,

• The table below represents the largest segments within the USA, CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO/SAN MATEO COUNTIES, COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA AND 1 MILE RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT SITE • The segments shaded grey in the table below are those segments with thegreatest propensity for buying or renting at the subject site.

Lifestyle Cohort

Family

Lifestyle

USA 116,137

Share of Households SF/SM Counties CMA 605 425

CA 12,654

94112 Zip Code 18

Lifestyle Characteristics

Bohemian Mix Young Digerati Urban Achievers Movers and Shakers Brite Lites, Li'l City Second City Elite Executive Suites Subtotal: Target Cohorts:

Upper Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper Upper Mid Upper Mid Upper Mid

60%-80% 80%-100% 20%-40% 80%-100% 60%-80% 60%-80% 60%-80%

<55 25-44 <35 35-54 <55 45-64 <55

Mostly Singles Singles/Couples Mostly Singles Married Couples Married Couples Married Couples Singles/Couples

Urban Urban Urban Suburbs Second City Second City Suburbs

27% 45% 17% 83% 68% 85% 60%

1.8% 1.2% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 9.9% 7.0%

5.1% 3.9% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 1.8% 1.3% 21.3% 16.8%

15.0% 16.8% 6.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 42.0% 42.0%

16.5% 20.5% 7.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 46.4% 46.4%

5.0% 9.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.5% 14.5%

Progressive, multi-ethnic students and professionals. Early adopters eager for latest movie, nightclub, laptop, microbrew. Ethnically mixed & tech savvy. Drawn to trendy apartments/condos, fitness clubs, boutiques, casual restaurants, bars. Young singles and couples; typically college-educated and ethnically diverse; up-and-comers. Dual-income couples, often with children. Business-oriented; many small business owners. Drive Porsche. Eat at Bertucci's. College-educated DINK households with well-paying careers; Homes filled with latest technology; Settled in nation's satellite cities. Successful execs in smaller cities. Multiple computers, large-screen TVs, & wine collections; read books & attend theater. White-collar professionals. Comfortable homes with easy access to downtown jobs, restaurants, and entertainment.

American Dreams Upper Mid Upward Bound Upper Big City Blues Low Multi-Culti Mosaic Lower Mid Winner's Circle Upper Low-Rise Living Low Kids and Cul-de-Sac Upper Mid Subtotal: Target Cohorts:

60%-80% 80%-100% 0%-20% 20%-40% 80%-100% 0%-20% 60%-80%

35-54 35-54 <35 35-54 35-54 <55 25-54

Mix, w/Kids Families w/Kids Mix, w/Kids Mix, w/Kids Families w/Kids Mix, w/Kids Families w/Kids

Urban Second City Urban Urban Suburbs Urban Suburbs

65% 85% 18% 52% 92% 15% 82%

2.1% 1.7% 1.1% 1.7% 1.1% 1.5% 1.6% 10.8% 2.1%

4.9% 3.4% 2.4% 2.5% 1.6% 3.8% 2.1% 20.6% 4.9%

7.7% 0.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.4% 1.0% 0.4% 12.0% 7.7%

8.6% 0.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.3% 1.4% 0.6% 13.0% 8.6%

23.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.9% 23.7%

Multilingual neighborhoods; middle-aged immigrants and their children living in middle-class comfort. Soccer moms and dads. Dual incomes. Focus on kids, purchasing computers, camping equipment, board games, bicycles, etc. Young singles and single-parent families; concentrated in major metros; facing economic hardship. Immigrant gateway community; First-generation Americans striving to improve lower-mid-class status. Suburban-oriented large young families in new-money subdivisions. Drive Infiniti SUV. Go downhill skiing. Shop Ann Taylor. Most economically challenged urban segment; Young, multi-ethnic singles and single parents. Upscale suburban large families. Administrative jobs and upper-middle-class incomes. Go to Chuck E Cheese. Drive Nissan SUV.

Money and Brains Upper Blue Blood Estates Upper Country Squires Upper Subtotal: Target Cohorts:

80%-100% 80%-100% 80%-100%

45-64 Family Mix 45-64 Families w/Kids 35-54 Families w/Kids

Urban Suburbs Rural

77% 94% 93%

2.0% 1.0% 1.7% 4.7% 2.0%

6.8% 1.7% 1.1% 9.6% 6.8%

24.9% 0.8% 0.4% 26.1% 24.9%

23.4% 0.6% 0.0% 24.1% 23.4%

49.6% 0.0% 0.0% 49.6% 49.6%

Predominantely white, some Afr. Am. City dwellers with advanced degrees; few children; read BusinessWeek. Married couples with children. Million-dollar homes and manicured lawns. High-end cars and exclusive private clubs. Wealthy exurban families in newer homes on large properties. Enjoy country club sports like golf, tennis, & swimming.

Upper Crust Upper The Cosmopolitans Upper Mid Urban Elders Low Close-In Couples Lower Mid Big Fish, Small PondUpper Pools and Patios Upper Mid Subtotal: Target Cohorts:

80%-100% 60%-80% 0%-20% 20%-40% 80%-100% 60%-80%

45-64 55+ 55+ 55+ 45+ 45+

Suburbs Urban Urban Urban Rural Suburbs

92% 74% 15% 63% 88% 85%

1.5% 1.1% 1.3% 1.1% 2.2% 1.3% 8.6% 1.1%

3.0% 2.5% 2.1% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 12.0% 2.5%

3.6% 4.5% 4.8% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 15.7% 4.5%

0.9% 4.6% 6.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 13.4% 4.6%

0.0% 11.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 11.9%

Wealthy empty-nesting couples over the age of 55. Very high standard of living. Drive Jaguar. Read Atlantic Monthly. Immigrants and descendants of multi-cultural backgrounds in diverse neighborhoods; Married couples, with and without children. Located in downtown neighborhoods of major metros; downscale; elder singles in older apartments High school-educated; Empty nesters typically living in older city neighborhoods, enjoying comfortable retirement. Empty-nesting upscale couples belong ing to country clubs. Leading citizens of small-town communities. Own motor home. Empty-nesting suburban couples with backyard pools and patios. Read Sunset magazine. Drive Mercury SUV.

33.9% 12.3%

63.6% 30.9%

95.8% 79.0%

96.8% 83.0%

100.0% 99.7%

Empy Nesters/Retirees

Mature Families

Singles & Couples

Age

National Ownership Percentage

Young Families

2011 Household Base (000s):

Income Level Percentile

Total Prevalent Cohorts: Total Target Cohorts: Source: The Concord Group; Claritas

Lifestyle Segmentation Analysis: Lifestyle Segmentation

Married Couples Singles/Couples Mostly Singles Singles/Couples Married Couples Married Couples

II. FOR-RENT RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT II-1 HISTORICAL APARTMENT MARKET PERFORMANCE SAN FRANCISCO METROPOLITAN AREA (1) 1995 THROUGH 2015 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

San Francisco Metropolitan Area Inventory(000s) 125.8

126.2

127.2

129.2

131.1

131.6

132.2

133.0

133.8

134.1

133.9

134.0

134.6

134.9

135.1

136.0

137.7

139.0

140.1

141.2

334 n/a n/a

1,064 n/a n/a

1,932 n/a n/a

1,896 n/a n/a

563 n/a n/a

609 n/a n/a

757 n/a n/a

804 -24 780

813 -82 731

429 -701 -272

533 -345 188

657 -82 575

281 0 281

452 -255 197

867 0 867

76 0 76

1,667 n/a n/a

1,276 n/a n/a

1,131 n/a n/a

1,052 n/a n/a

Completions Conversions Net Gain/(Loss)

393 n/a n/a

2012

2013

2014

2015

Vacancy Rate

1.4%

1.5%

1.8%

1.7%

1.2%

3.7%

4.5%

4.7%

5.0%

4.7%

3.9%

3.6%

4.8%

4.3%

3.3%

3.0%

3.1%

2.8%

2.6%

Effective Rent % Change

$993

$1,179 18.7%

$1,253 6.3%

$1,339 6.9%

$1,523 13.7%

$1,857 21.9%

$1,625 -12.5%

$1,458 -10.3%

$1,417 -2.8%

$1,428 0.8%

$1,482 3.8%

$1,598 7.8%

$1,762 10.3%

$1,824 3.5%

$1,717 -5.9%

$1,775 3.4%

$1,853 4.4%

$1,916 3.4%

$1,967 2.7%

$2,023 2.8%

$2,095 3.6%

Apartment Inventory & Vacancy Rate 10.0%

Forecast

120,000.0

8.0%

90,000.0

6.0%

60,000.0

4.0%

30,000.0

2.0%

Vacancy Rate (Line)

Apartment Inventory (Bars)

150,000.0

0.0%

0.0 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

West San Francisco Inventory

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Remainging SF Metro Area Inventory

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Vacancy Rate

Effective Rent

Effective Rent (Bars)

$1,857

$1,800 $1,200

$1,179

$1,253

$1,762

$1,625

$1,523

$1,458

$1,339

$1,417

$1,428

$1,482

$1,824

$1,598

$1,717

$1,775

$1,853

$1,916

$1,967

$2,023

$2,095

30.0% 22.5% 15.0%

$993

$600

7.5%

0.0% -7.5%

-$600 Forecast

-15.0%

-$1,200 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

SF Metro Effective Rent

2007

2008

SF Metro Effective Rent Change

(1) REIS San Francisco Metropolitan area includes San Francisco County, Bay front/ Eastern portions of Marin and San Mateo Counties Sources: The Concord Group; Moody's Economy.com for Employment data; REIS for apartment rents and vacancy forecasts

Apt Market Trends: Market Trends - SF

2006

Page 1 of 2

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Annual Rent Change (Line)

$2,400

EXHIBIT II-1 HISTORICAL APARTMENT MARKET PERFORMANCE WEST SAN FRANCISCO SUBMARKET 1995 THROUGH 2015 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

19,114

19,268

19,441

19,506

154

173

Vacancy Rate

2.1%

1.7%

2.1%

2.0%

1.9%

0.9%

2.3%

4.1%

4.7%

6.6%

4.5%

8.1%

5.8%

5.7%

5.8%

6.3%

4.8%

4.0%

3.6%

3.2%

2.8%

Effective Rent % Change

$994

$1,189 19.6%

$1,260 6.0%

$1,421 12.8%

$1,632 14.8%

$2,054 25.9%

$1,832 -10.8%

$1,511 -17.5%

$1,524 0.9%

$1,473 -3.3%

$1,535 4.2%

$1,653 7.7%

$1,866 12.9%

$2,025 8.5%

$1,835 -9.4%

$1,792 -2.3%

$1,831 2.2%

$1,869 2.1%

$1,916 2.5%

$1,971 2.9%

$2,027 2.8%

West San Francisco Inventory Completions (1)

Apartment Inventory & Vacancy 12.0%

Forecast

21,000

10.0%

18,000 8.0%

15,000 12,000

6.0%

9,000

4.0%

Vacancy Rate (Line)

Apartment Inventory (Bars)

% Change 24,000

6,000 2.0%

3,000 0

0.0% 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

West San Francisco Inventory

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

$1,831

$1,916

$1,971

$2,027

$1,869

West San Francisco Vacancy Rate

Effective Rent 36.0% $2,054

$2,025 $1,866

Effective Rent (Bars)

$1,832

$1,800

$1,632

$1,511

$1,421

$1,200

$1,189

$1,524

$1,473

$1,835

$1,653

$1,535

$1,792

30.0% 24.0%

$1,260

18.0%

$994

12.0% $600 6.0% $0

0.0% -6.0%

Forecast

-$600

-12.0% -$1,200

-18.0% 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

West San Francisco Effective Rent

2005

2006

2008

2009

West San Francisco Effective Rent Change

(1) REIS completion data represents a mixture of new apartment construction and apartment conversions. Sources: The Concord Group; Moody's Economy.com for Employment data; REIS for apartment rents and vacancy forecasts

Apt Market Trends: Market Trends - WSF

2007

Page 2 of 2

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Annual Rent Change (Line)

$2,400

EXHIBIT II-2 CURRENT INVENTORY - SELECTED COMPARABLE RENTAL COMMUNITIES CMA - SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTIES 4Q 2011 Rent Project

City

Project type (# of floors)

West San Francisco Presidio Landmark Avalon Sunset Towers Avalon Ocean Avenue Avalon at Diamond Heights

San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco

Midrise (6) Midrise (10) Lowrise (4) Lowrise (3)

Total/Weighted Average (3):

Forest City Avalon Communities AvalonBay Communities Avalon Communities

San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco

Total/Weighted Average (3):

Total Units

1932/2010 1961/1998 2012 1972/Ongoing

161 243 173 154

71% 95% NA 95%

731

Lowrise (2) High Rise (13) Midrise (7) Lowrise (2) High Rise (13)

Stellar Rental Stellar Rental Cal-American Stellar Rental Stellar Rental

1948/Ongoing 1948/Ongoing 1974/Ongoing 1948/Ongoing 1948/Ongoing

4 Projects

Urban San Francisco Carmel Rincon Trinity Place The Paramount Edgewater SOMA Residences Avalon Mission Bay III Argenta Archstone Fox Plaza Archstone Fox Plaza Archstone South Market Avalon at Mission Bay North Strata at Mission Bay Bayside Village 388 Beale Street The Fillmore Center Avalon Yerba Buena

San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco

Total/Weighted Average (3):

Highrise (23) Highrise (24) Highrise (43) Midrise (5) Midrise (4) Highrise (18) Highrise (20) Highrise (29) Highrise (29) Midrise (9) Highrise (18) Highrise (8) Lowrise (4) Highrise (20) High Rise (19) Midrise (6)

Carmel Trinity Management Related Management Company Sares Regis Group SOMA Residences AvalonBay Communities Riverstone Archstone Communities Archstone Communities Archstone Communities Avalon Communities UHG Forest City UDR, Inc. Laramar Group Avalon Communities

1989 2010 2001 2007 2000 2009 2008 1965/Ongoing 1965/Ongoing 1989/Ongoing 2004 2009 1988 1999 1989/Ongoing 2000

16 Projects

Daly City/Colma Avalon at Cedar Ridge 88 Hillside La Terrazza at Colma Station Westlake Village

Daly City Daly City Colma Daly City

Total/Weighted Avearge (3):

Lowrise (3) Midrise (8) Midrise (4) Lowrise (2)

Avalon Communities Equity Residential Equity Residential Gerson Bakar

1972/1998 2010 2005 1960/1999

4 Projects

(5)

South San Francisco South San Francisco San Bruno San Bruno

Lowrise (3) Midrise (4) Midrise (5) Midrise (5)

Total/Weighted Avearge (3):

4 Projects

Grand Total/ Weighted Average (Non Subj. Site):

28 Projects

Broadway Management Comp 1964/Ongoing Fairfield Properties 2006 Archstone Smith 2004/2007 Archstone 2010/2011

(1) Subject size average size. Extrapolation based on pricing slope created by minimum and maximum sizes and prices. (2) Presidio at Landmark opened in summer 2010, still in lease up period (3) Avalon Ocean Towers began pre-leasing in March 2012

Apartment Comps Inv. Table

Year Built/ Renovated

4 Projects

Park Merced Renovated Parkmerced Garden/Patio Renovated Parkmerced Towers Lakewood Apartments Unrenovated Parkmerced Garden/Patio Unrenovated Parkmerced Towers

South San Francisco/San Bruno Peninsula Pines Archstone South San Francisco Archstone San Bruno Luxury Collection at Archstone San Bruno

Property Manager

Occ. Rate

Unit Size

Base Price

Max PSF

Price

PSF

865 750 926 858

$3,340 $2,593 $3,062 $2,677

$3.86 $3.46 $3.31 $3.12

$3,865 $2,688 $3,112 $2,680

$4.47 $3.59 $3.36 $3.12

88%

840

$2,886

$3.44

$3,046

$3.63

160 144 721 1,378 1,539

90% 88% 97% 95% 93%

879 979 663 926 994

$2,393 $2,571 $1,606 $2,097 $2,165

$2.72 $2.63 $2.42 $2.26 $2.18

$2,485 $3,212 $1,716 $2,312 $2,674

$2.83 $3.28 $2.59 $2.50 $2.69

3,942

94%

904

$2,063

$2.28

$2,384

$2.64

320 68 486 193 278 260 179 443 443 410 565 192 864 227 1,144 160

89% 90% 100% 96% 96% 97% 99% 95% 95% 93% 97% 97% 99% 97% 96% 98%

559 513 725 808 490 803 800 690 690 788 1,019 883 704 1,091 768 810

$3,406 $2,700 $3,220 $3,308 $1,962 $3,190 $3,146 $2,672 $2,672 $2,977 $3,761 $3,174 $2,479 $3,832 $2,640 $2,605

$6.09 $5.26 $4.44 $4.09 $4.00 $3.97 $3.93 $3.87 $3.87 $3.78 $3.69 $3.60 $3.52 $3.51 $3.44 $3.21

$3,406 $2,762 $3,615 $4,971 $2,121 $3,372 $3,309 $2,952 $2,952 $3,304 $4,061 $3,262 $2,889 $4,253 $3,792 $2,898

$6.09 $5.38 $4.98 $6.15 $4.33 $4.20 $4.14 $4.28 $4.28 $4.19 $3.99 $3.69 $4.10 $3.90 $4.94 $3.58

6,232

96%

763

$2,918

$3.82

$3,403

$4.46

195 95 153 2,983

98% NA 95% 96%

779 1,166 994 728

$1,998 $2,639 $2,250 $1,603

$2.57 $2.26 $2.26 $2.20

$1,978 $2,772 $2,302 $1,721

$2.54 $2.38 $2.32 $2.36

3,426

96%

755

$1,683

$2.23

$1,791

$2.37

210 360 485 187

98% 98% 96% 85%

730 927 973 1,219

$1,899 $2,365 $2,455 $2,731

$2.60 $2.55 $2.52 $2.24

$2,727 $2,498 $2,577 $2,771

$3.74 $2.69 $2.65 $2.27

1,242

95%

955

$2,377

$2.49

$2,609

$2.73

15,573

95%

$2,385

$2.92

$2,710

$3.32

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

816

Concession None None None $750 off move-in

None None None None None

None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

None None None None

None None None 2Br - 1 mo. free

(4) Condominium converted to rental 10/1/11, still in initial lease up period; excluded from occupancy weighted averages (5) Luxury Collection built as Grand Luxe condominiums; began leasing in August 2011; still in lease up Source: The Concord Group

EXHIBIT II-3 CURRENT INVENTORY MAP COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA MARCH 2012

Color-Coded by Year Built/Renovated Blue = Before 1980 Light Blue = 1980 - 1990 Green = 1990-2000 Yellow = 2000-2005 Red = Built since 2005 Renovated Communities denoted by R following community name

Avalon Ocean Ave

Subject Site

Color Coded by Year Built Red = 2006-2011 Green = 2000-2005 Blue = Pre-2000

Source: The Concord Group

Apartment Comp Map: Map

EXHIBIT II-4 AMENITY AND SERVICE PROFILE CMA - SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTIES 4Q 2011 West San Francisco

City

Other San Francisco

Daly City

San Bruno

Avalon Ocean Avenue

Presidio Landmark

Avalon Sunset Towers

Avalon At Diamond Heights

Avalon at Mission Bay North

Edgewater

Archstone South Market

88 Hillside

Lux Col. @Archstone San Bruno

2012 173 $3,062 - $3,112 926 $3.31

1932/2010 161 $3,340 - $3,865 865 $3.86

1961/1998 243 $2,593 - $2,688 750 $3.46

1972/Ongoing 154 $2,677 - $2,680 858 $3.12

2004 565 $3,761 - $4,061 1,019 $3.69

2007 193 $3,308 - $4,971 808 $4.09

1989/Ongoing 410 $2,977 - $3,304 788 $3.78

2010 95 $2,639 - $2,772 1,166 $2.26

2010/2011 187 $2,731 - $2,771 1,219 $2.24

x Furniture Rental x

x x Furniture Rental x x

x Furniture Rental x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x Part-time x

x x

x Furniture Rental x

x x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x $125-$175/month

x x $100/month

x x $275/month

x $255/month or $350 tandem

x x x x x

x x x $75 for 5x5/$150 for 9x9

x x x x x

x x x x x - $25-$45

Project Name: Year Built: Units Avg. Rent Range*: Avg. Unit Size (sf) Avg. Rent ($/sf)*: Community Amenities: Services Dry Cleaning Pick-up Package Delivery Furnished Available? Wi-fi in Public Areas Concierge Online services Health/Wellness Amenities Fitness Center Pool Jacuzzi/Hot Tub Courtyard/BBQ Area

Parking Covered Parking Assigned Spaces Included Additional Space Miscellaneous Elevator Pet Friendly Landscaped Courtyard(s) Controlled Access Storage (Size, $/mo)

x x

Social Rooms Business Center Club Room w/ Media Gourmet Kitchen

Furniture Rental x

x x Underground x $200/month

x $150/month

x x ($50/mo) x x

x x $100-$140

$300/month

x x x

OUTSIDE PIC

Apartment Comps: Amenities

Page 1 of 2

x x x x x x In negotiation

x x x $75 additional

x x

x x x x $50-$100

EXHIBIT II-4 AMENITY AND SERVICE PROFILE CMA - SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTIES 4Q 2011 West San Francisco

City

Other San Francisco

Daly City

San Bruno

Archstone South Market

88 Hillside

Lux Col. @Archstone San Bruno

Granite Stainless/ Wood/

Granite Stainless Select tile, laminate

Maple/Java Alder Granite GD Black Wood

Wood/

Select wood, vinyl Select

Carpet Select

Avalon Ocean Avenue

Presidio Landmark

Avalon Sunset Towers

Avalon At Diamond Heights

Avalon at Mission Bay North

Edgewater

Dark Wood Faux Granite Black Wood

Oak Granite Stainless Wood

White Faux Granite Black Wood

White/Wood Formica White Laminate/Wood

Maple/Dark Wood Granite Black/Stainless Tile

Cherry Granite Black Laminate/Wood

Carpet x

Wood Select

Carpet Select

Carpet/Wood Select

Carpet x Select x 9'

Select

x 9'

x x 9' - 12'

Project Name:

Interior Amenities: Kitchen Specialty Cabinets Countertops Appliances Flooring Living Area Flooring Walk-In Closets Fireplace Ceiling Fan In Unit Washer/Dryer Ceiling Height

Select x 9'

x 11-14'

Heating

On-Site Walking Distance Walking Distance Walking Distance

Miscellaneous Air Conditioning/Heating Private Balcony/Deck

9'-Vaulted

x 9'

No AC / Radiant

No AC/ x Select

No AC/ Baseboard Heating Select

x Select

x x

No AC / x x

x x

0.8 mi Walking Distance Walking Distance 0.6 mi

Walking Distance Walking Distance Walking Distance Walking Distance

Walking Distance 0.6 mi Walking Distance Walking Distance

0.6 mi 0.7 mi Walking Distance Walking Distance

INTERIOR PIC

INSERT INTERIOR PIC

Nearby Services: Proximity to: Grocery Store Public Transportation Neighborhood Services Entertainment/Dining

Source: The Concord Group *Note: Average rent range and rent $/sf is net of any concessions/incentives currently offered by community;

Apartment Comps: Amenities

Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT II-5 PROJECTED FUTURE APARTMENT SUPPLY COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA 4Q 2011 I.

Overview by Submarket Status (1) Future (Non-Subject Site) Under Construction Approved Pending Stalled Total Supply

Other SF

North San Mateo Co.

0 47 0 26

1,089 4,501 2,730 736

0 0 0 0

1,089 4,548 2,730 762 0

9,057

9,130

West SF

CMA Total

II. Supply Projection CMA Status Under Construction Approved Pending Stalled

Start Likelihood 100% 75% 55% 25%

2012 50% 10% 5% 0%

Planned and Proposed Projection 2013 2014 2015 25% 25% 0% 25% 25% 25% 15% 15% 20% 0% 5% 10%

Status Under Construction Approved Pending Stalled

Weighted Value 1,089 3,411 1,502 191

2012 544 341 75 0

2013 272 853 225 0

6,192

961

1,350

PMA Total:

(1) (2)

Annual Units 2014 272 853 225 10

Future supply updated in 4Q 2011: Under Construction = projects that have broken ground (i.e. grading), but are not yet open; Approved = projects with an approved tract map by the city; Pending = proposed project plans submitted, but no approval CMA defined as San Francisco County and North and Central San Mateo County; CMA Delineated on Exhbit I-1 Sources: The Concord Group; REIS, San Francisco Planning Department, San Mateo Planning, Daly City Planning, South SF Planning

Apartment P&P: Flow Chart

1,360

2015

2016 0% 15% 20% 15%

2016

0 853 300 19

0 512 300 29

1,172

841

EXHIBIT II-6 APARTMENT DEMAND OVERVIEW PRIMARY MARKET AREA (1) 4Q 2011

Household Income to Income Range Housing $0 - $25,000 38% 25,000 35,000 35% 35,000 50,000 33% 50,000 75,000 30% 75,000 - 100,000 27% 100,000 - 125,000 23% 125,000 - 150,000 22% 150,000 - 200,000 19% 200,000 + 16%

Affordable Monthly Rent $0 - $800 $800 - $1,000 $1,000 - $1,400 $1,400 - $1,900 $1,900 - $2,300 $2,300 - $2,400 $2,400 $2,800 $2,800 - $3,200 $3,200 -

Subtotal/Wtd. Avg.: 28% Income Qualified ($1,400+ monthly rent):

Total Households 2011(2) 2016 94,531 96,844 39,107 39,795 65,354 66,282 99,092 101,940 80,389 83,017 62,246 65,191 44,563 47,567 46,523 50,510 66,653 74,117 598,458 399,466

625,263 422,342

Percent Rent 85% 70% 65% 55% 50% 55% 40% 35% 25%

Renter Households 80,351 27,375 42,480 54,501 40,195 34,235 17,825 16,283 16,663

55%

Annual Turnover Annual Annual Annual PMA Demand Projected CMA Capture of Existing Pool from Effective All New CMA All New Renter HHs Turnover New HHs Rentals (3) Rentals (3) Capture (4) Rentals (3) Rentals (3) 55% 44,193 463 44,586 614 35,669 491 50% 13,687 138 13,784 165 11,027 132 45% 19,116 186 19,237 216 15,389 173 35% 19,075 570 19,388 409 15,511 327 25% 10,049 526 10,311 313 8,249 250 20% 6,847 589 7,171 358 5,737 287 20% 3,565 601 3,805 258 3,044 207 15% 2,442 797 2,722 291 2,177 233 10% 1,666 1,493 2,040 382 1,632 305

329,361 179,702

37%

120,441 43,645

5,361 4,575

700

3,006 2,011

80%

98,435 36,350

PMA Income Qualified $1,400+/month = 2,011 units CMA Income Qualified $1,400+/month = 1,609 units

614 600 Apartment Units Demanded

123,044 45,437

491

500

409 400

313

300

250

216 165

200

382

358

327

287

207

173

132

305

291

258

233

100 0 Under $800

$800 to $1,000

$1,000 to $1,400

$1,400 to $1,900

$1,900 to $2,300

PMA New Apartment Demand Potential

CMA (5) PMA (5)

Annual Household Growth 4,485 = 85% of PMA 5,267

$2,300 to $2,400

$2,400 to $2,800

$2,800 to $3,200

Over $3,200

CMA Capture @ 80%

CMA (5) PMA (5)

Total Existing Households 424,590 = 71% of PMA 598,458

(1) See exhibit I-1 (2) Effective existing HHs - current household base less projected loss (4) Capture based on historical CMA capture of apt inventory and projected growth over next 5 years. (3) All Apts includes all renter HHs looking for an apartment in any given year; New Rentals reflects demand for additional apartment units in market, including demand from new HHs and obsolescence rate of 0.5% per year. (5) PMA defined as San Francisco County; CMA defined as San Francisco south of Market, east of Highway 101, north of 16th Street and west of the coastline; delineated in Exhibit I-1 Source: The Concord Group

Apt Demand: DemSumm

2,405 1,609

EXHIBIT II-7 PROJECTED SUPPLY VERSUS POTENTIAL DEMAND COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA 4Q 2011 Competitive Market Area (1) 2013 2014 2015

2012 Future Delivered Future Total Total Available at Year Start (1) Demand Annual Demand Projection Remaining Demand

2016

961 961

1,350 1,350

1,360 1,360

1,172 1,172

841 841

1,609 648

1,609 258

1,609 249

1,609 437

1,609 768

Competitive Market Area 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600

Planned Delivery Volume

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2012

2013

2014 Future Supply

(1)CMA defined as San Francisco County and North and Central San Mateo County; CMA Delineated on Exhbit I-1 (2) Total available at year start includes units from previous year in excess of yearly demand value Source: The Concord Group Apartment P&P: Supp v Dem-PMA-CMA

2015 Demand

2016

III. FOR-SALE RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT III-1 HISTORICAL HOME SALES AND PRICE TRENDS PRIMARY MARKET AREA, COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA AND SAN FRANCISCO 1988 THROUGH 2011

1996

New Home Closings San Francisco % Change Rem. Competitive Market Area Competitive Market Area % Change Primary Market Area % Change CMA % of PMA Resale Closings San Francisco Rem. Competitive Market Area Competitive Market Area Primary Market Area

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Annual 2003 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

1Q10

2Q10

3Q10

4Q10

416 2% 244 660 3%

371 -11% 413 784 19%

511 38% 439 950 21%

284 -44% 425 709 -25%

182 -36% 109 291 -59%

599 229% 114 713 145%

958 60% 127 1,085 52%

1,159 21% 144 1,303 20%

890 -23% 95 985 -24%

985 11% 24 1,009 2%

1,240 26% 21 1,261 25%

1,416 14% 58 1,474 17%

1,149 -19% 121 1,270 -14%

860 -25% 52 912 -28%

522 -39% 15 537 -41%

227 259 195 Same Quarter Change: 20 21 9 247 280 204 Same Quarter Change:

1,087

1,273 17%

1,133 -11%

1,281 13%

1,004 -22%

582 -42%

1,110 91%

1,501 35%

2,157 44%

1,406 -35%

1,254 -11%

1,859 48%

2,001 8%

1,663 -17%

1,181 -29%

803 -32%

298 355 268 Same Quarter Change:

59%

52%

69%

74%

71%

50%

64%

72%

60%

70%

80%

68%

74%

76%

77%

67%

83%

79%

5,026 2,247 7,273

5,730 2,587 8,317

6,061 3,046 9,107

6,220 3,086 9,306

5,347 2,809 8,156

4,428 2,328 6,756

5,543 2,994 8,537

6,065 3,257 9,322

6,679 3,535 10,214

6,333 3,125 9,458

5,470 2,761 8,231

5,281 1,868 7,149

4,321 1,860 6,181

4,373 2,090 6,463

4,667 1,901 6,568

4,963 2,056 7,019

928 408 1,336

12,639

14,088

15,068

15,501

13,536

11,354

14,489

15,690

17,042

15,216

13,296

12,127

10,068

10,548

11,000

11,724

58% 8% 8%

59% 8% 7%

60% 7% 8%

60% 8% 9%

60% 7% 8%

60% 5% 4%

59% 7% 8%

59% 9% 10%

60% 11% 11%

62% 8% 9%

62% 9% 11%

59% 13% 15%

61% 17% 19%

61% 14% 16%

60% 10% 12%

60% 6% 7%

234 643

179

1Q11

2Q11

3Q11

4Q11

141

158

124

-38%

-39%

-36%

-45%

2 181

5 146 -41%

6 164 -41%

2 126 -55%

2 101 -50%

260

217 -27%

233 -34%

203 -43%

150 -44%

76%

70%

67%

70%

62%

67%

1,396 531 1,927

1,169 485 1,654

1,174 477 1,651

1,055 449 1,504

1,411 530 1,941

1,243 529 1,772

1,254 548 1,802

2,168

3,251

2,801

2,780

2,402

3,308

3,113

2,901

62% 12% 16%

59% 10% 13%

59% 9% 11%

59% 9% 10%

63% 8% 9%

59% 7% 8%

57% 6% 7%

62% 5% 5%

3,200

1,600

24,000

1,400

2,800

1,400

22,000

1,200

2,400

1,200

20,000

1,000

2,000

1,000

18,000

800

1,600

800

16,000

600

1,200

600

14,000

400

800

400

12,000

200

400

200

10,000

All Home Sales - Competitive Market Area (Bars)

1,600

New Home Sales - PMA (Line)

New Home Sales - Competitive Market Area (Bars)

CMA % of PMA % Buy New (PMA) % Buy New (CMA)

409

1997

8,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Competitive Market Area

Primary Market Area

Competitive Market Area

Sources: The Concord Group; DataQuick

Historical Home Sales: Clos

Page 1 of 2

Primary Market Area

All Home Sales - PMA (Line))

Area

EXHIBIT III-1 HISTORICAL HOME SALES AND PRICE TRENDS PRIMARY MARKET AREA, COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA AND SAN FRANCISCO 1988 THROUGH 2011

Area

1996

New ($000s) Primary Market Area % Change Competitive Market Area % Change San Francisco % Change CMA vs. PMA Resale ($000s) Primary Market Area % Change Competitive Market Area % Change San Francisco % Change CMA vs. PMA

1997

252

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Annual 2003 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

305 21% 309 35% 296 45%

356 16% 369 19% 335 13%

404 14% 390 6% 325 -3%

541 34% 528 35% 569 75%

556 3% 558 6% 500 -12%

600 8% 591 6% 567 13%

551 -8% 523 -11% 495 -13%

587 6% 560 7% 525 6%

661 13% 638 14% 605 15%

671 2% 686 7% 689 14%

673 0% 667 -3% 667 -3%

617 -8% 635 -5% 635 -5%

600 -3% 611 -4% 615 -3%

569 -5% 571 -7% 0 n/a

638 12% 615 8% 612 n/a

-9%

-3%

-2%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-1%

-4%

268

289 8% 267 9% 285 9%

324 12% 301 12% 324 14%

378 17% 350 16% 375 16%

467 23% 437 25% 475 27%

504 8% 478 9% 510 7%

528 5% 506 6% 540 6%

560 6% 545 8% 575 6%

645 15% 625 15% 660 15%

749 16% 727 16% 755 14%

763 2% 751 3% 777 3%

795 4% 777 3% 811 4%

705 -11% 698 -10% 765 -6%

614 -13% 603 -14% 660 -14%

641 4% 621 3% 678 3%

599 -6% 578 -7% 637 -6%

-8%

-7%

-8%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

-2%

-3%

229 205

246 261 -8%

$800

1Q10

2Q10

3Q10

581 543 612 Same Quarter Change: 607 561 593 Same Quarter Change: 616 553 0 Same Quarter Change: 5%

1Q11

545 511 0

2Q11

3Q11

4Q11

611 5% 595 -2% 0 n/a

653 20% 645 15% 0 n/a

631 16% 573 2% 0 n/a

664 8% 647 9% 645 n/a

-3%

-6%

-3%

-1%

-9%

-2%

626 665 645 Same Quarter Change: 606 643 614 Same Quarter Change: 660 700 669 Same Quarter Change:

620

576 -8% 571 -6% 623 -6%

638 -4% 607 -6% 670 -4%

611 -8% 580 -10% 643 -8%

561 -13% 553 -10% 608 -9%

-1%

-5%

-1%

-3%

4Q10

-3%

-5%

615 675 -1%

Quarterly Price

Annual Price

$700

Median New Price ($000s)

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Competitive Market Area

Sources: The Concord Group; DataQuick

Historical Home Sales: Price

Page 2 of 2

Primary Market Area

3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11

EXHIBIT III-2 SELECTED COMPETITIVE NEW HOME INVENTORY SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 4Q 2011

Project Name San Francisco Product Blu One Rincon Millennium Tower Symphony Towers 788 Minna 829 Folsom Axis The Madrone One Hawthorne 5800 3rd Street Candlestick Cove Candlestick Heights

City (Neighborhood)

Builder

Sales Open Date

SOMA Rincon Hill SOMA Civic Center SoMa SOMA Nob Hill SoMa SOMA Carroll Station Candlestick Point Candlestick Point

Lennar Urban Urban West Associates Millennium Partners West Bay Builders Eamonn Herlihy Forma LLC Maurice Casey Bosa Development Jackson Pacific Ventures Holliday Development Signature Properties Holliday Development

May-08 Jun-06 Nov-07 Aug-07 Jul-11 May-09 Nov-10 Jul-11 Apr-10 Aug-10 Oct-07 Aug-11

San Francisco Total/Weighted Average Other Competitive Product Belamor Millbrae Paradise

Product (Stories) Condo (21s) Condo (65s) Condo (60s) Condo (13s) Condo (5s) Condo (8s) Condo (7s) Condo (16s) Condo (24s) Condo (4s) TH (3s) Condo (5s)

(4):

Millbrae

Other Total/Weighted Average (4):

CMA Active Projects Grand Total: CMA Active Projects Weighted Average (4):

L.F. George Properties

Apr-10

Condo (6s)

Units Total Rem

Current Developer Inventory (1) Unit Net Price Size ($) PSF

Unit Size

LTM Closed Units (5) Net Price ($) PSF

HOA Dues

1,215 1,430 1,341 489 647 757 774 NA 960 1,080 1,396 NA

$1,047,800 1,342,077 1,311,070 357,500 499,500 554,924 566,267 NA 685,326 400,946 488,064 NA

$863 938 978 732 772 733 732 NA 714 371 350 NA

2.3 3.3 3.3 1.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 7.7 3.0 1.7 2.0 0.3

2.8 6.0 5.5 2.6 2.5 1.9 1.8 7.3 5.3 2.8 1.6 0.5

$700 700 775 442 392 475 384 677 450 335 448 400

$592

1,084

$833,395

$769

4.3

4.9

$584

$639,000

$552

1,197

$658,625

$550

3.0

6.3

$288

$639,000

$552

1,197

$658,625

$550

3.0

6.3

$288

$660,365

$591

1,087

$828,557

$762

4.3

5.0

114 396 419 130 20 69 26 329 165 137 150 66

2 13 163 2 12 15 6 306 69 100 75 65

2,287 892 1,084 395 558 870 794 1,074 954 1,219 1,530 1,151

$2,540,000 846,750 977,995 319,000 426,083 652,721 566,667 674,745 592,150 429,079 523,440 362,277

$1,111 950 902 808 764 751 714 628 620 352 342 315

2,021

828

1,116

$661,216

142

1,157

142

1,157

2,163

861 1,118

(3)

(2)

(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Siource: The Concord Group (1) Current Developer Inventory prices and home sizes reflect current mix of unsold units at competitive projects with less than 25% of total units remaining. In projects with more unsold inventory prices reflect developer base pricing for whole community. (2) Project with considerable available inventory: Home size, price and per square foot numbers based on total building mix and base developer list price. (3) Only Penthouses remain at Blu Condominiums (4) Area averages weighted by units remaining (5) Last Twelve Months Closed Units calculations based on available historic sales data (6)Verona Ridge temporarily sold out of initial phase (8 units), second phase of remaining 26 units currently on hold

ForSale RecComps: Inv Table

Avg. Monthly Abs. L3M Lifetime

EXHIBIT III-3 CURRENT INVENTORY MAP - FOR SALE COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA 4Q 2011

Color-Coded by Stories Red = One to Five Blue = Six to Fifteen Green = Greater than Fifteen

Subject Site

Source: The Concord Group Comp Map: Map

EXHIBIT III-4 RESALES BY AREA LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS MARCH 2011 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2012

Resale Neighborhood A. B. C. D.

Westwood Park Sunnyside Mission Terrace Ingleside Total/Average:

Source: The Concord Group; RedFin; Dataquick, MLS

Resale Nodes: Exhibit

Sales 13 51 62 37 163

Price $793,583 $652,382 $543,527 $426,042 $570,861

Average Size 1,517 1,194 1,320 1,175 1,263

PSF $523 $546 $412 $363 $452

Yr. Built 1922 1937 1932 1926 1931

EXHIBIT III-5 ANNUAL DEMAND OVERVIEW AND AFFORDABILITY PRIMARY MARKET AREA (1) 2011 THROUGH 2016 I. Affordability Household Income Cohorts $0 35,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 200,000

Households 2011 %

% Income to Housing

$35,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 200,000

133,638 65,354 99,092 80,389 62,246 44,563 46,523 66,653

22% 11% 17% 13% 10% 7% 8% 11%

38% 36% 35% 34% 34% 32% 30% 25%

Total/Wtd Avg:

598,458

100%

34%

Assumptions: Mortgage Rate Term Property Tax

5.00% 30 1.20%

Supportable Housing Burden $0 1,108 1,500 2,188 2,833 3,542 4,000 5,000

$1,108 1,500 2,188 2,833 3,542 4,000 5,000

HOA Fees $200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Less HOA Fees: $0 908 1,300 1,988 2,633 3,342 3,800 4,800

$908 1,300 1,988 2,633 3,342 3,800 4,800

$200

$1,712 2,450 3,745 4,962 6,297 7,161 9,045 9,045

Monthly Mortgage Less HOA and Tax $0 766 1,096 1,675 2,220 2,817 3,203 4,046

$766 1,096 1,675 2,220 2,817 3,203 4,046

Actual Mortgage $0 142,635 204,139 312,097 413,512 524,741 596,713 753,743

- $142,635 204,139 312,097 413,512 524,741 596,713 753,743 +

Down Payment (2) 5% 10% 12% 15% 18% 20% 20% 20% 13%

APR Years Annually

(1) Defined as the San Francisco Peninsula and Silicon Valley; refer to Exhibit I-1 for a map of the Primary Market Area (2) Accounts for portion of household net worth applied to down payment

Source: The Concord Group

Demand: Affordability

Approx. Tax

Page 1 of 2

Home Price $0 150,000 230,000 350,000 490,000 640,000 750,000 940,000

- $150,000 230,000 350,000 490,000 640,000 750,000 940,000 +

EXHIBIT III-5 ANNUAL DEMAND OVERVIEW AND AFFORDABILITY PRIMARY MARKET AREA (1) 2011 THROUGH 2016 II. Demand - Primary Demand Pool Base Affordable Home Price (000) (2) $0 $150 $230 $350 $490 $640 $750 $940

$150 $230 $350 $490 $640 $750 $940

Total: $490 K+: $750 K+:

Existing Households Existing Turnover Rate Moving (3)

Buyers Total New Demand Households Pool

Percent Buy Home (4)

Total Buyer Pool

Buy A New Home (5)

133,638 65,354 99,092 80,389 62,246 44,563 46,523 66,653

12% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8%

16,037 7,189 9,909 8,039 5,602 4,011 3,722 5,332

600 186 570 526 589 601 797 1,493

16,637 7,375 10,479 8,565 6,191 4,611 4,519 6,825

25% 30% 40% 50% 60% 65% 75% 80%

4,159 2,212 4,192 4,282 3,715 2,997 3,389 5,460

5% 5% 7% 10% 10% 15% 15% 15%

208 111 293 428 371 450 508 819

7% 3% 9% 13% 12% 14% 16% 26%

598,458 219,985 113,176

10% 8% 8%

59,840 18,667 9,054

5,361 3,480 2,290

65,201 22,147 11,344

47% 70% 78%

30,407 15,562 8,849

10% 14% 15%

3,189 2,149 1,327

100% 67% 42%

III. Capture

Submarket CMA Other PMA PMA:

New Home Sales (2007-Present) Percent Units Capture

Household Growth Total Growth 2011 2016 Nominal Percent

Capture Projection Annual Inc. Qual. Capture Demand (6)

5,454 2,053

73% 27%

424,590 173,868

447,015 177,781

22,425 3,913

85% 15%

79% 21%

1,695 453

7,507

100%

598,458

624,795

26,337

100%

2,149

(1) Defined as San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; refer to Exhibit I-1 for a map of the Primary Market Area (2) TCG Estimate based on assumed mortgage terms, percent income to housing and other factors (3) Base household volume from 2011-2016; including loss or growth (4) Estimate based on owner/renter hh distribution per the 2000 U.S. Census and most recent American Community Survey (5) Based on LTM ratio of new home to existing home sales per DataQuick Data Services and Hanleywood (6) Income Qualified demand based on demand for homes priced at or above $490K Source: The Concord Group

Demand: Turnover Demand

Annual New Buyers Demand Total Pct. Over

Page 2 of 2

3,189 2,981 2,870 2,577 2,149 1,777 1,327 819

EXHIBIT III-6 PROJECTED SUPPLY VERSUS POTENTIAL DEMAND COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA 4Q 2011

Demand Scenarios (Income-Qualified $490K+ Home Price) Rate Number Near-term Recovery Rate (Next 12 mos) 537 Mid-term recovery rate (Mos 13-24) 1,116 Demographically-supported stabilized demand rate 1,695 Years 2011 Current Available Current Available Total

2012

2013

2014

2015 0

2011-2016 Total

2016

828

756

229

62 0 0 0 0 62 890

155 0 0 0 0 155 911

93 280 349 0 0 722 951

0 745 698 0 10 1,453 1,453

0 897 698 60 10 1,665 1,665

0 1020 698 89 10 1,817 1,817

134 756

682 229

1,261 (310)

1,695 (242)

1,695 (30)

1,695 122

(3)

(2)

(0)

Future Delivered (Per The Concord Group) Near-Term (Under Construction)

Planned (Approved/Pending) Large-Scale Approved Large-Scale Pending Inactive Approved Future Total Total Available at Year Start Sales Run Rate (1) Total Available at Year End Months to Equilibrium

7,687

Planned Delivery Volume

2,100 1,800 1,500 1,200 900 600 300 0 2011

2012 YTD Sales

(1) Adjusts demand scenario to

Source: The Concord Group For Sale P&P: Supp v Dem

3 months remaining in 2011

2013 Remaining Unsold Units

2014

2015 New Supply

2016 Demand

IV. STUDENT HOUSING

EXHIBIT IV-1 MARKET AREA MAP SAN FRANCISCO MARCH 2012

SFSU

SUBJECT SITE

CCSF

Map: RegLoc

EXHIBIT IV-2 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS CCSF -- OCEAN AVENUE CAMPUS 2007 THROUGH 2011 2007 #

Students Full-time Part-time Credit Student Subtotal Non-Credit Student Subtotal

2008 #

2009 #

2010 #

2011 #

Average #

8,030 20,016

29% 71%

8,746 21,267

29% 71%

9,332 21,490

30% 70%

10,153 19,765

34% 66%

10,546 20,013

35% 65%

9,361 20,510

31% 69%

28,046

98%

30,013

98%

30,822

98%

29,918

98%

30,559

97%

29,872

98%

695

598

558

736

827

683

28,741

100%

30,611

100%

31,380

100%

30,654

100%

31,386

100%

30,554

100%

**CCSF DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY CAMPUS HOUSING** 8,030 100% 8,746 100% 9,332 100%

10,153

100%

10,546

100%

0 9,361

0% 100%

10,153

100%

10,546

100%

9,361

100%

7,191 1,400 1,955

68% 13% 19%

6,454 1,228 1,680

69% 13% 18%

10,546

100%

9,361

100%

Total Students Student Life (Full-time) Percent who live in campus housing Precent who live off campus Total Students

8,030

100%

5,492 1,040 1,498

68% 13% 19%

8,030

100%

8,746

100%

9,332

100%

6,502 1,244 1,586

70% 13% 17%

9,332

100%

Student Residency (Full-time) California Resident Foreign Non-Resident Out of State Total Students Student Commute Type to Ocean Campus Drive to Campus Bus/Muni/Streetcar BART Walk Car (Passenger) Bike Motorcycle Other Source: CCSF Research & Policy

ccsf demos: Summ

34% 28% 19% 8% 5% 3% 2% 1%

Car/Motorcycle Public Transit Walk/Bike

40% 47% 11%

EXHIBIT IV-3 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY 2007 THROUGH 2011 2007 #

Students Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Undergraduate Subtotal PostBac Graduate Graduate Subtotal Total Students

2008 #

2009 #

2010 #

2011 #

Average # %

5,578 2,580 6,852 9,366

23% 11% 28% 38%

5,674 2,579 6,818 9,307

23% 11% 28% 38%

5,815 2,743 6,970 9,473

23% 11% 28% 38%

5,901 2,908 6,739 9,408

24% 12% 27% 38%

5,853 2,872 7,245 9,309

23% 11% 29% 37%

5,764 2,736 6,925 9,373

23% 11% 28% 38%

24,376

81%

24,378

81%

25,001

82%

24,956

84%

25,279

86%

24,798

83%

1,495 4,254

6% 17%

1,033 4,603

4% 19%

601 4,867

2% 19%

317 4,445

1% 18%

205 4,057

1% 16%

730 4,445

14% 86%

5,749

19%

5,636

19%

5,468

18%

4,762

16%

4,262

14%

5,175

17%

30,125

100%

30,014

100%

30,469

100%

29,718

100%

29,541

100%

29,973

100%

2,920 22,036

12% 88%

3,008 22,271

12% 88%

2,964 22,153

12% 88%

24,956

100%

25,279

100%

25,118

100%

Undergraduate Student Life Percent who live in college housing Precent who live off campus Total Students Undergraduate Origin From California Out of State International Total Students

23,182 200 994

95% 1% 4%

23,025 226 1,127

94% 1% 5%

23,556 211 1,234

94% 1% 5%

23,588 195 1,173

95% 1% 5%

23,928 192 1,159

95% 1% 5%

23,456 205 1,137

95% 1% 5%

24,376

100%

24,378

100%

25,001

100%

24,956

100%

25,279

100%

24,798

100%

Source: SFSU Academic Institutional Research

SFSU Demos: Summ

EXHIBIT IV-4 DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY SUBJECT SITE 2011 I. CCSF - Primary Source of Demand Demand from Full-time Credit Students Full-time

Student Type Credit Students

Students # % 30,559 100% 30,559

Full-time % # 35% 10,546

100%

Internatinoal Students/1 13%

10,546

1,400

Out-of-State Students/1 19%

1,400

1,955

Students from CA Total /1 Live Near CCSF % # % # 68% 7,191 75% 5,393

1,955

7,191

Full-time Demand 8,748

5,393

8,748

Live "Off-Campus" % #

Immediate Area Capture % # 8,748

100%

8,748

90%

7,873

II. SFSU Demand from Undergraduate Students Full-time

Student Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Undergraduates # % 5,853 23% 2,872 11% 7,245 29% 9,309 37% 25,279

100%

Full-time % # 4,926 2,417 6,097 7,834 84%

21,274

= 4-year Students % # 4,926 23% 2,395 11% 5,898 28% 7,834 37% 21,053

100%

4-year Students Students from San Francisco Total /1 Live Near SFSU Students from Outside SF /1 % # % # 4,119 807 726 2,002 392 353 4,932 966 870 6,551 1,284 1,155 84%

17,603

16%

3,450

90%

Full-time Undergrad Demand 4,845 2,356 5,802 7,706

3,105

20,708

Students from San Francisco Total Live Near SFSU % # % # 50 45 983 885 40% 1,033 90% 930

Graduate Demand 118 2,342 2,461

Live "Off-Campus" % #

Immediate Area Capture % # 4,926 2,356 5,802 7,706

88%

18,244

10%

1,824

Demand from Graduate Students

Student PostBac Graduate

Graduates # % 205 5% 4,057 95% 4,262 100%

Full-time /1 % # 123 2,441 60% 2,564

Students from Outside SF /1

60%

74 1,457 1,531

Immediate Area Capture % #

95% (2)

2,338

10%

234

II. Demand Summary Total Demand Potential

Target Segments (in order)

1/ Per CCSF & SFSU Demographic Reports 2/ RBA Estimate based on available graduate student housing options at SFSU 3/ Per US Census Housing Report, REIS, & Reservoir Bears

Demand:Demand-Standard

OffCampus Demand

International Students @ CCSF Domestic Students @ CCSF Undergraduates at SFSU Graduates at SFSU

1,400 7,348 18,244 2,338

Total Student Housing Demand

27,930

Immediate Area Capture % 90% 90% 10% 10%

1,260 6,613 1,824 234 8,672

% Prefer Potential Managed Site Apts (3) Demand 90% 50% 50% 50%

1,134 3,307 912 117 5,470

RETAIL ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT V-1 HISTORICAL RETAIL MARKET PERFORMANCE 94112 ZIP CODE 2007 THROUGH 2011

Market Factor 94112 Zip Code RBA (000s) Net Absorption (000s) Deliveries (000s) Total Vacancy Rate Vacant SF (000s)

2007

2008

Annually 2009

2010

2011

2011 1Q

2,238 86 0 6.3% 142

2,227 112 0 0.8% 18

2,227 -33 0 2.3% 52

2,211 -14 0 2.2% 50

2,211 -4 0 2.4% 53

2,211 1 0 2.2% 48

Quarterly 2011 2Q 2011 3Q 2,211 3 0 2.0% 45

2,211 1 0 2.0% 45

120

2,211 -9 0 2.4% 53 12.0%

100

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

-20

-2.0%

-40

-4.0%

-60

-6.0% 2007

2008

2009

2010 Net Absorption

2011 Deliveries

Source: The Concord Group; CoStar

Retail Macro Market Trends: Macro Market

Page 1 of 3

2011 1Q Vacancy Rate

2011 2Q

2011 3Q

2011 4Q

Vacancy Rate

Quarterly

Annually

Square Feet - Retail (000)

2011 4Q

EXHIBIT V-1 HISTORICAL RETAIL MARKET PERFORMANCE HALF MILE RADIUS - SUBJECT SITE 2007 THROUGH 2011

Market Factor Half Mile Radius RBA (000s) Net Absorption (000s) Deliveries (000s) Total Vacancy Rate Vacant SF (000s)

2007

2008

Annually 2009

2010

2011

2011 1Q

489 16 0 4.3% 21

487 4 0 3.2% 15

487 -25 0 8.3% 40

471 -14 0 8.3% 39

471 -2 0 8.7% 41

471 0 0 8.3% 39

Quarterly 2011 2Q 2011 3Q 471 -2 0 8.8% 41

471 -1 0 8.9% 42

471 1 0 8.7% 41 12.0%

20 Quarterly

Annually 15

9.0%

6.0%

3.0%

0.0%

-5

-3.0%

-10

-6.0%

-15

-9.0%

-20

-12.0%

-25

-15.0%

-18.0%

-30 2007

2008

2009

2010 Net Absorption

2011

2011 1Q Deliveries

Source: The Concord Group; CoStar

Retail Macro Market Trends: rma

Vacancy Rate

Square Feet - Retail (000)

2011 4Q

Page 2 of 3

Vacancy Rate

2011 2Q

2011 3Q

2011 4Q

EXHIBIT V-1 HISTORICAL RETAIL MARKET PERFORMANCE 94112 ZIP CODE AND HALF MILE RADIUS 2007 THROUGH 2011 Quarterly 2011 2Q 2011 3Q

Market Factor

2007

2008

Annually 2009

2010

2011

2011 1Q

94112 Zip Code Rental Rate (1) Y/Y % Change Vacancy Rate

$24.13 NA 6.3%

$30.60 27% 0.8%

$26.74 -13% 2.3%

$25.03 -6% 2.2%

$25.91 4% 2.4%

$25.86 0% 2.2%

$25.43 -2% 2.0%

$25.95 2% 2.0%

$26.41 2% 2.4%

$24.33

$30.36 99% NA 3.2%

$28.81 108% -5% 8.3%

$26.36 105% -9% 8.3%

$27.05 104% 3% 8.7%

$26.95 104% 0% 8.3%

$26.95 106% 0% 8.8%

$27.14 105% 1% 8.9%

$27.14 103% 0% 8.7%

Half Mile Radius Rental Rate (1) % Market Y/Y % Change Vacancy Rate

NA 4.3%

$32

$30

Lease Rate ($/sf/yr)

$28

$26

$24

$22

$20 2007 2Q

2008 2Q

2009 2Q 94112 Zip Code Rents

Half Mile Radius Rents

(1) Represents a Triple Net lease type Source: The Concord Group; CoStar

Retail Macro Market Trends: rents

2010 2Q

Page 3 of 3

2011 2Q

2011 4Q

VI. OFFICE ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT VI-1 HISTORICAL OFFICE MARKET PERFORMANCE ONE MILE RADIUS 2007 THROUGH 2011

Market Factor One Mile Radius RBA (000s) Net Absorption (000s) Deliveries (000s) Total Vacancy Rate Vacant SF (000s)

2007

2008

Annually 2009

2010

2011

2011 1Q

280 -2 0 2.3% 6

276 0 0 0.8% 2

276 -3 0 1.7% 5

276 2 0 1.1% 3

276 1 0 0.8% 2

Quarterly 2011 2Q 2011 3Q 276 0 0 0.8% 2

276 0 0 0.8% 2

2011 4Q 276 0 0 0.8% 2 12.0%

Quarterly

Annually 2

10.0%

8.0%

6.0% 0 4.0% -1 2.0% -1 0.0% -2 -2.0%

-2

-4.0%

-3

-6.0% 2007

2008

2009

2010 Net Absorption

2011 Deliveries

Source: The Concord Group; CoStar

Office Macro Market Trends: Macro Market

Page 1 of 2

2011 1Q Vacancy Rate

2011 2Q

2011 3Q

2011 4Q

Vacancy Rate

Square Feet - Office (000)

EXHIBIT VI-1 HISTORICAL OFFICE MARKET PERFORMANCE ONE MILE RADIUS 2007 THROUGH 2011

Market Factor

2007

2008

Annually 2009

2010

2011

2011 1Q

One Mile Radius Rental Rate (1) Y/Y % Change Vacancy Rate

$22.62 NA 2.3%

$30.21 34% 0.8%

$33.46 11% 1.7%

$28.86 -14% 1.1%

$32.54 13% 0.8%

$27.37 -16% 0.8%

Quarterly 2011 2Q 2011 3Q $32.27 18% 0.8%

$32.27 0% 0.8%

$40 $38 $36

Lease Rate ($/sf/yr)

$34 $32 $30 $28 $26 $24 $22 $20 2007 2Q

2008 2Q

2009 2Q One Mile Radius Rents

(1) Represents a Full Service Gross lease type Source: The Concord Group; CoStar

Office Macro Market Trends: rents

Page 2 of 2

2010 2Q

2011 2Q

2011 4Q $38.26 19% 0.8%

VII. SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT VII-1 STRATEGIC PRODUCT MENU BALBOA RESERVOIR; SAN FRANCISCO, CA APRIL 2012

Characteristics Use Type Product Type

Density/ FAR

Elevation

Config

77.0

4 Stories

Stacked Flats

Approx Unit Mix

Recommended Positioning Base Avg. Average Rent/Price PSF Prem. Rent/Price PSF

Bedrooms

Unit Size

10% Studio 48% 1B 42% 2B 100%

515 750 1,100 874

$1,975 2,550 3,400 $2,850

$3.83 3.40 3.09 $3.26

50% 2B 50% 3B 100%

1,250 1,550 1,400

$593,000 662,000 $627,500

$474 427 $448

400 800 500

Per Unit $1,700 3,100 $2,050

$4.25 3.88 $4.10

OccupAnnual ancy Absorption

For-Rent Residential 4 Story Stick Over Podium

$2,030 $2,630 3,500 $2,935

$3.94 3.51 3.18 $3.36

95%

270

$640,000 715,000 677,500

$512 461 $484

For-Sale Residential Row Townhomes

21.0

2-3 Stories

Attached

(2)

Student Housing 3 Story Stick Over Podium

175.0

3 Stories

Stacked Flats

75% Standard 25% Suite 100%

# Beds 2 4

Per Student $850 * all units come furnished 775 $831 95% 1,500

Retail (1) Resident Serving Ground Floor

0.25

Ground Floor

Mid-Scale Total/Average:

$2.00 /psf/mo 2.25 $2.13

95%

Total/Average:

$2.25 /psf/mo 2.75 $2.50

92%

General Office (1) Mid-rise Office

0.50

3-Story

Mid-rise Office

(1) Recommended retail rents represent a triple net lease and recommended office rents represent a modified gross lease type (2) Includes 3% lot premium and 5% options/upgrades

Product Menu:Menu

Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT VII-1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENT/PRICING BALBOA RESERVOIR; SAN FRANCISCO, CA APRIL 2012 San Francisco County Average Median Income Levels (2012)* % AMI Level 100% 90% 60%

1 Person $72,100 $64,900 $43,250

2 Person $82,400 $74,150 $49,450

Studio 1.0 Person $43,250 30% $12,975

1BR 1.5 Person $46,350 30% $13,905

$1,081 $32 $1,049 10%

$1,159 $43 $1,116 48%

3 Person $92,700 $83,450 $55,600

4 Person $103,000 $92,700 $61,800

5 Person $111,250 $100,150 $66,750

6 Person $119,500 $107,550 $71,700

Rental Housing (60% AMI)*

Eligible Income % Income/Housing Supportable Housing Burden Monthly Rent + Utilities Less Utilities Monthly Rent Site Mix

2BR 3 Person * $55,600 30% * $16,680 $1,390 $55 $1,335 42%

$1,201 average monthly rent

For-Sale Housing (90% AMI)* 2BR 3 Person $83,450 33% $27,539

Eligible Income % Income/Housing Supportable Housing Burden HOA Fees (Annual) Approx. Tax Monthly Mortgage Actual Mortgage Down Payment Assumption Home Price Site Mix

1.5%

$2,400 $5,216 $1,660 $347,746 5.0% $366,000 50%

3BR 4 Person * $92,700 33% * $30,591 $2,400 $5,850 $1,862 $389,972 4% APR; 30 years 5.0% $410,500 $388,250 average home price 50%

* Per San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing

C:\Users\Dan\Dropbox\Golden Shovel 2012\Market Analysis\Product MenuProduct Menu

Page 2 of 2

7 Person $127,700 $114,950 $76,600

8 Person $135,950 $122,350 $81,550

EXHIBIT VII-2 PRODUCT POSITIONING - FOR RENT CMA - SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTH SAN MATEO COUNTIES 4Q 2011

$5,000 Communities color-coded by location: Red = West San Francisco Pink = Other San Francisco Orange = Mission Bay Green = Daly City/Colma Blue = South SF/San Bruno Light Blue = San Mateo/Foster City

$4,600

Average Monthly Rent

$4,200 $3,800 $3,400 $3,000 $2,600 $2,200 $1,800 $1,400 300

500

700

900

1,100

Unit Size (Sq. Ft.)

1,300

1,500

1,700

Balboa Reservoir Recommended Positioning

Avalon At Diamond Heights (95%; 1972/Ongoing, 0s )

Avalon Sunset Towers (95%; 1961/1998, 0s )

The Fillmore Center (96%; 1989/Ongoing, 9s )

Archstone San Bruno (96%; 2004/2007, 5s )

Luxury Collection At Archstone San Bruno (85%; 2010/2011, 5s )

Archstone South San Francisco (98%; 2006, 4s )

Peninsula Pines (98%; 1964/Ongoing, 3s )

Westlake Village (96%; 1960/1999, 2s )

Avalon At Cedar Ridge (98%; 1972/1998, 3s )

La Terrazza At Colma Station (95%; 2005, 4s )

Lakewood Apartments (97%; 1974/Ongoing, 7s )

88 Hillside (4%; 2010, 8s )

Presidio Landmark (71%; 1932/2010, 6s )

Argenta (99%; 2008, 0s )

Avalon Ocean Avenue (NA; 2012, 4s )

Avalon At Mission Bay North (97%; 2004, 8s )

Avalon Mission Bay Iii (97%; 2009, 8s )

Strata At Mission Bay (97%; 2009, 8s )

Apartment Comps: RS

EXHIBIT VII-3 PRODUCT POSITIONING - FOR SALE COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA 4Q 2011 $1,000,000 Color-Coded by Neighborhood San Francisco Dark Blue = Civic Center Red = Nob Hill Purple/Magenta = SoMa Pink = Candlestick Heights Light Green = Rincon Hill Yellow = Carrol Station Orange = Mission Bay

$900,000

Base Pricce Net of Concessions

$800,000

Sunnyside LTM closings

Westwood Park LTM closings

Other Competitive Product Brown = Millbrae Aqua = San Mateo SFD Hollow icons denote LTM

$700,000 Site positioned at a 12% discount to Westwood Park and slightly below Sunnyside LTM closings; well below new proudct in Urban San Francisco.

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000 600

800

1,000

Recommended Balboa Reservoir Positioning (Avg Price) Candlestick Cove (TH (3s) , 1.58) Blu (Condo (21s) , 2.77) One Rincon (Condo (65s) , 5.98) Belamor Millbrae Paradise (Condo (6s) , 6.27) Linear (Westwood Park Neighborhood LTM Resales)

1,200

1,400

829 Folsom (Condo (8s) , 1.89) Millennium Tower (Condo (60s) , 5.51) Candlestick Heights (Condo (5s) , 0.47) Symphony Towers (Condo (13s) , 2.56) Westwood Park Neighborhood LTM Resales Linear (Sunnyside Neighborhood LTM Resales)

Data Source: The Concord Group Note: The number in parentheses represent lot size and absorption, respectively. ForSale RecComps: net ps

Size (Sq. Ft.)

1,600

1,800

One Hawthorne (Condo (24s) , 5.29) Axis (Condo (7s) , 1.80) The Madrone (Condo (16s) , 7.29) 5800 3rd Street (Condo (4s) , 2.81) Sunnyside Neighborhood LTM Resales

2,000

EXHIBIT VII-4 SCHEMATIC LAND RESIDUAL ANALYSES BALBOA RESERVOIR; SAN FRANCISCO, CA APRIL 2012 Land Residual Potential ‐ Income Producing Product Types Apartments 4 over 1 PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS Square Feet Density/FAR Parking Spaces per Unit Structure

Student Housing 3 story

Retail Center

Office Mid‐rise

874 90

500 175

1 0.25

1 0.5

0.85

0.00

0.001

0.002

INCOME Average Monthly Rental Income (15% Affordable) Income per Square Foot Potential Gross Income per Year Less Vacancy Effective Rental Revenue Other Revenue % Effective Income Other Revenue Total Revenue

$2,676 $3.06 $32,112 5% $30,506 6% $1,938 $32,444

$1,911 $3.82 $22,932 5% $21,785 0% $0 $21,785

$25.50 5% $24.23 ‐ $0 $24.23

$30.00 7.5% $27.75 ‐ $0 $27.75

EXPENSES Operating Expenses % Revenue Total Expenses

31% $10,058

31% $6,753

10% $2.42

25% $6.94

NOI

$22,387

$15,032

$21.80

$20.81

5.50%

6.0%

8.0%

$407,030

$250,532

$273

$260

$252 $220,510

$249 $124,667

$180 $180

$275 $275

Incl Above $0 $220,510

$0 $0 $124,667

$20 $20 $200

$40 $40 $315

30% $66,153

30% $37,400

30% $60

30% $95

$143,332 18 $5,912 1,433 $7,346 $73,499

$81,033 18 $3,343 810 $4,153 $41,553

$130 12 $3.58 $1.30 $4.88 $64.88

$205 18 $8.45 $2.05 $10.49 $104.99

10% $40,703

10% $25,053

10% $27

10% $26

$334,712

$191,273

$292

$446

$407,030 $334,712 $72,318 18% $6,508,596

$250,532 $191,273 $59,259 24% $10,370,371

$273 $292 ($20) ‐7% ($213,410)

$260 $446 ($186) ‐71% ($4,047,874)

Cap Rate Capitalized Value/Unit Sales Price BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COSTS Hard Costs Construction Costs/rentable square foot Total Direct Costs Parking Costs Parking Structures $20,000 per space Total Parking Costs Total Hard Costs Soft Costs Soft Costs % of Hard Costs Total Soft Costs Financing Costs Loan Draw 65% of hard costs Construction Timing (Months) Construction Interest 5.5% of loan draw Loan Fee 1.0% of loan draw Total Financing Costs Total Soft Costs Builder Profit Builder Return Total Costs LAND RESIDUAL ‐ Super Pad Capitalized Value/Unit Sales Price Total Costs Land Residual ‐ Super Pad % of Revenue Per Acre

Residual Model - All Potential Use Types:Residual - Commercial Use Types

Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT VII-4 LAND RESIDUAL ANALYSIS BALBOA RESERVOIR; SAN FRANCISCO, CA APRIL 2012 Land Residual Potential ‐ For‐Sale Townhomes Ratio GENERAL Net Density (units/acre) Average Floorplan Square Footage REVENUES Average Base Home Price Average Lot Premium Average Options/Upgrade Average Home Price Incentives/Concession to Buyer Broker Co‐op 50% of sales @

FINANCING COSTS Loan Draw (on Non‐Financing Costs) Loan Draw (on Land) Total Loan Draw Interest 6 Months Loan Fee Total Financing Costs

1,400

21 1,400

$627,500 18,825 31,375

$388,250

$580,468

3.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0%

$677,700 (20,331) (10,166) $647,200

$388,250

$596,295

$140 $196,000 23,531 $219,531

$140 $196,000 ‐ $196,000

$214,905

1.5% 3.0% 2.0% 1.5% 3.7% 1.0% 12.7%

$9,413 18,825 12,550 9,413 23,268 6,275 $79,743 $299,274

$79,743 $275,743

$79,743 $294,648

70.0% 70.0%

$209,492 180,598 $390,090 10,727 3,901 $14,628

$193,020 40,025 $233,045 6,409 2,330 $8,739 $

$313,902 $224

$284,482 $203

$308,119

$75,300

$46,590

$69,656

$647,200 389,202 $257,998

$388,250 331,072 $57,178

$596,295 377,775 $218,520

75.0%

5.5% 1.0%

Total Costs (Excluding Land) Total Costs per Square Foot BUILDER PROFIT

12.0%

FINISHED LOT LAND RESIDUAL Revenues Total Costs (including Builder Profit) FINISHED LOT PRICE As % of Average Home Price

38%

Per Acre

Residual Model - All Potential Use Types: Residual - For-Sale THs

Totals

20% of Units

Net Revenues From Residential Sales NON‐FINANCING COSTS Hard Costs/square foot Direct Costs Options and Upgrades Total Construction Costs Other Costs Common Area Marketing and Sales G & A Property Taxes (special assesment district) Impact Fees/Permits Other Soft Costs/Contingency Total Other Costs Total Non‐Financing Costs

Product ‐ TH Market Rate Affordable

$5,504,536

Page 2 of 2

15% $1,219,928

$13,471

38% $4,662,262

EXHIBIT VII-5 MULTIFAMILY LAND SALES SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Q4 2011 Land Comparable Analysis ‐ Q4 2011

Proposed Use Buyer/ Developer Neighborhood Sale Price Date of Sale Acres Planned Units Construction Type Units Per Acre Price Per Acre Price Per Sq. Ft. Price Per Unit

Comp #1 Apartments MCRT Dogpatch $6,900,500 Feb‐12 0.51 106 Type I 208 $13,530,392 $311 $65,099

Comp #2 Apartments UDR Mission Bay $23,600,000 Nov‐10 2.25 315 Type I 140 $10,501,961 $241.09 $74,921

San Francisco Land Sales Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Apartments Apartments Apartments UHG BRE EQR Mission Bay Mission Bay Mission Bay $12,000,000 $41,400,000 $33,306,000 Jan‐11 Apr‐11 Dec‐11 1.09 3.72 1.95 147 360 273 Type I Type V/ III‐A Type I 135 97 140 $10,986,821 $11,129,046 $17,079,196 $252.22 $255.49 $392.08 $81,633 $115,000 $122,000

Comp #6 Apartments Archstone SF Opera WH $26,000,000 Oct‐11 2.67 350 Type I 131 $9,737,828 $223.55 $74,286

Average

12.19 1,551

$11,748,345 $269.70 $92,332

B. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Westwood Terrace ‐ Cash Flow Analysis Annual Cash Flows ($000s) Closing 3/31/14 Revenue Gross Scheduled Rent Premiums Parking & Storage Income Gross Scheduled Rent Scheduled Rent/Unit/Month Economic Vacancy Bad Debt and Model Units Other Income Effective Gross Income Expenses Payroll Utilities Turnover Maintenance Advertising Other Exp (Admin) Insurance* Property Mgmt Licenses & Fees Recurring Capital Capital Reserves Special Taxes & Assessments Ad Velorum Property Taxes Total Expenses Total Expenses/Unit/Month Net Operating Income

Year 1 3/31/15

Year 2 3/31/16

Year 3 3/31/17

Year 4 3/31/18

Year 5 3/31/19

Year 6 3/31/20

Year 7 3/31/21

Year 8 3/31/22

Year 9 3/31/23

15,439,069 0 2,589,223 0 $0.00

16,056,632 0 2,692,792 0 $0.00

16,698,897 0 2,800,504 0 $0.00

17,199,864 0 2,884,519 0 $0.00

17,715,860 0 2,971,055 0 $0.00

18,247,336 0 3,060,186 3,551,254 $654.73

18,794,756 0 3,151,992 21,946,748 $4,046.23

19,358,599 0 3,246,552 22,605,151 $4,167.62

19,939,357 0 3,343,948 23,283,305 $4,292.64

0 0 0 0

0 (64,329) 0 211,675

0 (192,988) 0 9,472,678

(565,129) (192,988) 0 20,695,303

(1,164,165) (192,988) 0 21,926,151

636,488 581,453 131,605 167,497 119,641 143,569 133,997 0 47,856 119,641 71,784 552,964 2,451,087 0 $0.00

655,582 598,897 135,553 172,522 123,230 147,876 138,017 0 49,292 123,230 73,938 569,553 2,500,109 0 $0.00

675,250 616,864 139,619 177,697 126,927 152,312 142,158 0 50,771 126,927 76,156 586,640 2,550,111 0 $0.00

695,507 635,370 143,808 183,028 130,734 156,881 146,423 0 52,294 130,734 78,441 604,239 2,601,113 0 $0.00

716,373 654,431 148,122 188,519 134,657 161,588 150,815 0 53,863 134,657 80,794 622,366 2,653,136 0 $0.00

737,864 674,064 152,566 194,175 138,696 166,435 155,340 76,031 55,478 138,696 83,218 641,037 2,706,198 1,520,083 $280.25

760,000 694,285 157,143 200,000 142,857 171,429 160,000 469,869 57,143 142,857 85,714 660,268 2,760,322 6,461,887 $1,191.35

782,800 715,114 161,857 206,000 147,143 176,571 164,800 483,965 58,857 147,143 88,286 680,076 2,815,529 6,628,141 $1,222.00

806,284 736,567 166,713 212,180 151,557 181,869 169,744 498,484 60,623 151,557 90,934 700,479 2,871,839 6,798,830 $1,253.47

(1,308,408)

3,010,791

14,067,162

15,127,322

Capital Costs Pre‐Development Costs Soft Costs Hard Costs Total Capital Costs

(2,871,120) 0 0 (2,871,120)

(3,102,120) (875,409) 0 (3,977,529)

0 (10,504,904) 0 (10,504,904)

0 (6,881,375) (12,056,756) (18,938,131)

0 (5,069,610) (72,340,537) (77,410,147)

0 (422,467) (6,028,378) (6,450,846)

0 0 0 0

Cash Flow Before Debt Service

(2,871,120)

(3,977,529)

(10,504,904)

(18,938,131)

(77,410,147)

(78,718,555)

(3,440,055)

14,067,162

15,127,322

(400,000) 0 (400,000)

(55,028,924) 0 (55,028,924)

0 0 0

Capital Requirements Land Acquisition Cost Pursuit Costs Total Capital Requirements

(1,609,943) (500,000) (2,109,943)

Cash Flow from Sale and Bonds Bond Financing Sale Proceeds Certified Pad Sales Transaction Costs Capital Costs at Exit Net Sale Proceeds Unlevered Cash Flow Unlevered IRR Unlevered Profit Unlevered CF Multiple

0 0 0 0 0 0 (2,109,943)

(3,271,120)

0 0 0 0 0 0 (59,006,453)

0 0 0

0 0 50,722,404 (634,030) 0 50,088,374 39,583,470

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

13,268,588 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

(18,938,131)

(64,141,559)

(78,718,555)

(3,440,055)

45,155,919 77,410,147 0 (4,031,779) 0 122,566,067

122,566,067 6,450,846 0 (6,423,967) 0 129,016,912

0 0 0 0 0 0

285,671,350

129,016,912 0 0 (6,450,846) (129,016,912) 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

12.0% $95,629,003 1.4x

Financing Construction Beginning Balance Borrowings Principal Payment Interest Payment Paydown of Debt Ending Balance

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 45,155,919 0 (564,449) 0 45,155,919

Loan Fee

(1,290,169)

Levered Cash Flow Cash on Cash Return Levered IRR Levered Profit Levered CF Multiple

0 275,042,216 0 (3,438,028) 0 271,604,188

(2,109,943) 16.1% $76,867,794 1.6x

(3,271,120) ‐60.8%

(59,006,453) ‐91.6%

39,583,470 52.9%

(18,938,131) ‐20.2%

(20,840,258) ‐16.4%

(5,340,186) ‐4.2%

(3,413,176) ‐2.7%

150,203,592 117.9%

0 0.0%

Westwood Terrace ‐ Loan Comparison

Company Loan Type

Northwestern Mutual Construction to Permanent

Loan Amount (LTC)

~60% LTC

Sizing Parameters

1.35 DSC based on Today's rents/expenses

1.15 x Stabilized

Term

3yr Construction, 5 to 10yr perm (7+ years total)

I/O or Amo

Tax Exempt Bond 20% BMR @ 80% AMI up to 90% LTC

HFF 9% Tax Credit appx. 70% Eligible Dev. Costs on Affordable units

4% Tax Credit Comes with Bond Financing appx. 30% Eligible Dev. Costs on Affordable units

Bank of America Construction

HFF Construction to Permanent Jones Lang Lasalle Construction (Student Housing) Construction Permanent

65% ‐70% LTC if recourse; 55% ‐60% LTC if no recourse

9.09% Debt Yield on Stabilized NOI (Rents as of today)

9.50% Debt Yield on Stabilized NOI (Rents as of today)

18 yrs

4yr, 2yr extension Based on performance metrics

IO construction and lease up. 30 year AMO after

I/O During Construction

Interest

5.50%

5.20%

Fees

1% (High legal costs)

Recourse

Completion guarantee

Developer guarantees

Townhomes

Not Included; Separate Loan

Not Included in bond; Separate Loan

Combined into total loan; pay down pro‐rata of total cost

Deal Positives

Fixed rate up front for entire hold period. Assumable on sale. Single Lender

High volume cap for State Subsidize a large portion of (1) Not as competitive, development costs comes with bond financing associated with BMR units

Very competitive Deal

Urban Infill,

Deal Negatives/ Risks

Higher interest rate for construction period vs. floating. Prepayment penalties. Lower LTC levels.

(1) 30 years designated use (1) 55 years designated use standard; could be longer (2) Significantly reduces (2) High interest at 5.2% the rents from 80% AMI compared to current (3) Time Lags of 6‐8 construction loans at 2.8% months (4) Process is extremely competitive

Syndicated Loan: Need 3‐4 lenders because of its size, which will make it non competitive since you have 4 different players

Non‐traditional Student Housing

Either 40% @ 60% AMI or Either 40% @ 60% AMI or 20% @ 50% AMI 20% @ 50% AMI

No Interest Rate Associated

LIHTC Investors face recapture

No Interest Rate Associated

LIHTC Investors face recapture

(1) Minimum 30 years designated use, potentially more (2) Significantly reduces the rents from 80% AMI

65% LTC

70% LTV

3yr

2 years Construction

15 years total including options

4yr I/O, 2 yr AMO (Based on 30yr 5%)

I/O

I/O During Construction

30 yr amo

Daily Flowing LIBOR +2.50 = 2.85% all in rate

Daily Flowing LIBOR +2.25‐ 3.00 all in rate

5.40%

4.90%

.5‐1%

100%; 50% to COO; 25% to DSCR @ 1.0 x; 0% to DSCR @ 1.25 x

25% during construction period

None upon Stabilization

Westwood Terrace ‐ Equity Comparison

Company

Company Type

Relevant MF Projects (Deals, Markets, etc)

Avalon Bay

Equity Residential

BRE Properties

JP Morgan

USAA

The Carlyle Group

Invesco

REIT

Fund

Insurance Company and Pension Fund Advisor

Fund

Pension Fund Advisor

Ocean Avenue

San Jose, SF, Berkeley

West Coast Focused

$4B Value Fund $10B Value Fund Partners: Tishman Spyer, Urban Housing, and Sarus Regus

Typical Structure on deals over $300M

All cash

Debt Structure

No Debt

Max LTC

Equity Structure

All cash

10%/90% 9% 50%/50% 15%

Untrended Yield to Cost

5.5% ‐ 5.8%

5.5% ‐6.0%

Going in Cap

4.00‐4.25%

Exit Cap Unlevered IRR

JV Structure

Levered IRR Development Fee Hold Period

Limited because of $100M is max deal size. Can be all cash size for core or JV. Depends on product in targeted several factors. location

Northwestern Mutual

Jones Lang LaSalle (Student Housing)

Life Co.

Broker

6th Fund at $2.3B, Invesco Value Fund Pension Fund Client 9000 units under Equity broker for $500M committed III $500M ‐ State Board of construction across student housing Florida US. Mostly with development partners. Foster City & N San Jose locally

Debt and Equity

Provide both the Debt and Equity

Debt and Equity

No Debt

Max LTC

50%

60 LTC% 10yr construction/perm

Max LTC

Equity Line of Credit; LIBOR+150 bps No

JV 90/10

10%/90% 10% 25%/75% 15% 20%/80% 20%

10%/90% 10% 30%/70% >10% 40%/60% 14%

10%/90% 10% 20%/80% >10% 30%/70% 15% 35%/65% 20%

10%/90% 10% 20%/80% >10% 30%/70% 14% 50%/50% 18%

10%/90% 9% 25%/75% 12% 40%/60% >12%

10%/90% 10% 20%/80% >10% 30%/70% 15%

5.5% ‐6.0%

6.00%

5.75% ‐6.00%

6.00%

6.5‐7.00%

4.50%

4.00‐4.25%

4.50%

5.00%

5.00‐5.50%

5.90%

5.25%

5.50%

6.00%‐6.50%

5.25%‐5.50%

5.75%

6.50%

8‐11%

8‐ 11%

9‐ 11%

10‐ 12%

No debt

13 ‐ 15%

No debt

None

13‐17%; 1.7x Multiple 3%

Long term

20%+, 2x Multiple

15‐20%

20%+; 2x Multiple

17%

13 ‐ 15%

12%

3‐4%

Built and Sell

Long term

10yrs +

C. RFQ / RFP PROCESS

* Black Text = Steve O'Connell - Cal Team * Blue Text = David Prowler - SFPUC * Red Text = Gary Down - SFPUC * Green Text = Director of City of SF Real Estate Division

D. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

Westwood Terrace Development Timeline Reservoir Bears Development ID

Task Name

Start

Finish

Duration

Predecesso tr

SFPUC and City of SF Internal Land Disposition Approval

SFPUC Commission Disposition Approval and Surplus Designation

City of SF Offers Property to Other Public Agencies

Gain SF Board of Supervisors Approval of disposition and RFQ - RFP

Public RFQ and RFP Process

Wed 8/1/12

Wed 5/29/13

216 days

Wed 8/1/12

Mon 10/29/12

64 days

Tue 10/30/12

Fri 1/25/13

Mon 12/3/12

Wed 5/29/13

128 days 3FS-40 days

Tue 10/30/12

Wed 3/26/14

367 days

Tue 10/30/12

Wed 5/29/13

152 days 2

SFPUC Draft RFQ and RFP Doucments

SFPUC Incorporate Board of Sup and Other Comments

Thu 5/30/13

Mon 7/29/13

43 days 6

Public Notification of Upcoming RFQ - RFP Process

Thu 5/30/13

Mon 7/29/13

43 days 4

RFQ Issued and Responses Received

Tue 7/30/13

Tue 8/27/13

21 days 7,8

RFQ Response Review and Interviews

Wed 8/28/13

Wed 9/25/13

21 days 9

SFPUC Announce Developer Finalists and Issue and Receive RFP Responses

Thu 9/26/13

Mon 11/25/13

43 days 10

RFP Response Review and Interviews

Tue 11/26/13

Tue 12/24/13

21 days 11

SFPUC Commission, City of SF Real Estate Div and Board of Supervisor Approval of RFP Select

Wed 12/25/13

Fri 2/21/14

43 days 12

Agency Approvals in Place ENA Negotiating Period between SFPUC and Selected Developer

Fri 1/24/14

Tue 3/25/14

DEVELOPER PAYS INITIAL LAND DOWNPAYMENT

Wed 3/26/14

Thu 3/27/14

Fri 4/22/16

Thu 3/27/14

1 day 15

ENA Period - Project Entitlement

Community Outreach

Fri 3/28/14

Thu 3/24/16

520 days 17

Rezoning Application Process

Fri 3/28/14

Thu 3/24/16

520 days 17

CEQA Process Including Full Project Specific EIR

Fri 3/28/14

Thu 3/24/16

520 days 17

Area Plan Amendment

Fri 3/28/14

Thu 3/24/16

520 days 17

Entitlement Process

Fri 3/28/14

Thu 3/24/16

520 days 17

Entitlements in Place

Fri 3/25/16

1 day 18,19,20,22

DEVELOPER PAYS OUTSTANDING LAND BALANCE

Fri 3/25/16

1 day 18,19,20,22

TOWNHOME "SUPERPAD" PARCEL SALE TO HOMEBUILDER

Fri 3/25/16

Fri 4/22/16

21 days 18,19,20,22

STUDENT ORIENTED BUILDINGS AIR-RIGHTS PARCEL SALE

Fri 3/25/16

Fri 4/22/16

21 days 18,19,20,22

Tue 11/26/13

Fri 7/28/17

Tue 11/26/13

Mon 2/16/15

Mon 1/4/16

Fri 6/17/16

120 days 28,17,23FS-

Mon 6/20/16

Fri 12/2/16

120 days 29

Conceptual Design

Schematic Design

Design Development

Project: Golden Shovel Project Timelin Date: Sat 4/21/12

2014 tr tr

2015 tr tr

2016 tr tr

2017 tr tr

2018 tr tr

542 days

2013 tr tr

1 day 14

Developer Selected - ENA Executed - Entitlement Work Begins

Design - Multifamily, Townhome and Student Housing

43 days 13FS-21 da

64 days 2

2012 tr tr

959 days 320 days 11

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 1

2019 tr tr

2020 tr tr

2021 tr tr

202 tr

Westwood Terrace Development Timeline Reservoir Bears Development ID

Task Name

Start

Finish

Duration

Predecesso tr

Construction Documents

Mon 12/5/16

Fri 6/30/17

Bid Period

Mon 5/22/17

Fri 7/28/17

Mon 4/24/17

Fri 7/27/18

330 days 120 days 31FS-50 da

Construction Permit Procurement - Typical Process for Each Unit Type

Mon 4/24/17

Fri 10/6/17

Demolition and Shoring Permit

Mon 10/9/17

Fri 2/9/18

90 days 34

Structure Permit

Mon 1/1/18

Fri 5/4/18

90 days 35FS-30 da

Final Building Permit

Mon 2/12/18

Fri 7/27/18

Construction - Multifamily and Student Housing

Mon 2/12/18

Mon 4/6/20

Excavation and Rough Grade Preparation

Mon 2/12/18

Thu 5/10/18

Concrete Podium Work

Fri 5/11/18

Thu 10/25/18

Framing - Multifamily and Student Housing

Fri 8/3/18

Thu 2/28/19

150 days 40FS-60 da

Skin - Multifamily and Student Housing

Fri 2/1/19

Tue 10/22/19

188 days 41FS-20 da

Interior Buildout - Multifamily and Student Housing

Fri 4/26/19

Tue 1/28/20

198 days 42SS+60 da

MEP Commissioning - Multifamily and Student Housing

Wed 12/4/19

Fri 4/3/20

88 days 43FS-40 da

Punchlist - Multifamily and Student Housing

Wed 1/1/20

Wed 4/1/20

66 days 43FS-20 da

Construction Complete - Multifamily and Student Oriented Buildings

Mon 4/6/20

1 day 44

CFD Funded Infrastructure Work

Fri 10/26/18

Thu 4/11/19

120 days 40

Fri 1/18/19

Tue 6/1/21

618 days

2014 tr tr

2015 tr tr

2016 tr tr

2017 tr tr

2018 tr tr

64 days 35 120 days 39,36

Townhome "Super Pad" Site Prep

Fri 1/18/19

Thu 6/6/19

100 days 47FS-60 da

Townhome Construction

Fri 4/12/19

Tue 6/1/21

558 days 49FS-40 da

Townhome Construction Completions Begin - Rolling Sales Through Absorption

Mon 7/29/19

1 day 44FS-180 d

Tue 7/30/19 Mon 11/15/21

600 days 51

Tue 7/30/19

Thu 9/16/21

558 days 51

For Sale Townhome Absorption Period

Multifamily Rental Absorption Period

Tue 4/7/20

Mon 11/15/21

420 days 46

Student Oriented Rental Absorption

Tue 4/7/20

Mon 8/31/20

105 days 46

Project: Golden Shovel Project Timelin Date: Sat 4/21/12

561 days

Rental and For Sale Absorption

2013 tr tr

120 days 35

50 days 31FS-30 da

Site Permit

Construction - Townhomes

150 days 30

2012 tr tr

Task

Milestone

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Progress

External Tasks

Group By Summary

Progress

Summary

Rolled Up Milestone

Split

Project Summary

Deadline

Page 2

2019 tr tr

2020 tr tr

2021 tr tr

202 tr

E. CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Project Name

Project Location

Balboa Reservoir San Francisco, CA FICTICIOUS ESTIMATE PREPARED FOR STEVE O'CONNELL Conceptual Site Plan ESTIMATE SUMMARY: Based on Type V 1 hr - Wood Framed Structure

4/20/2012

Construction Cost Parking 1181 stalls

Market 452 units

Townhomes 117 units

Student Housing 483 units

TOTALS

413514

493656

180015

289920

1377105

394925

163650

241600

800175

$65,164,610

$20,196,831

$35,095,231

$137,296,016

UNIT GSF TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FT. TOTAL NET SQUARE FT TOTAL SHELL COSTS

$16,839,345

TOTAL FINISHES COSTS DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST

DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST PER GSF

$14,400,674

$5,945,672

$10,355,272

$30,701,618

$16,839,345

$79,565,283

$26,142,503

$45,450,503

$167,997,634

$41

$161

$145

$157

$122

$201

$160

$188

$210

DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST PER NSF DIRECT CONST. COST PER UNIT

$14,259

$176,029

$57,837

$100,554

$371,676

DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS INSURANCE CONSTRUCTION FEE

$16,839,345 $841,967 $17,681,312 $884,066 $157,806 $608,503

$79,565,283 $3,978,264 $83,543,547 $4,177,177 $745,626 $2,875,156

$26,142,503 $1,307,125 $27,449,628 $1,372,481 $244,988 $944,681

$45,450,503 $2,272,525 $47,723,028 $2,386,151 $425,928 $1,642,391

$167,997,634 $8,399,882 $176,397,515 $8,819,876 $1,574,348 $6,070,732

$19,331,687

$91,341,507

$30,011,778

$52,177,498

$192,862,470

$47

$185

$167

$180

$140

$231

$183

$216

$241

$202,083

$256,511

$108,028

$426,687

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL COST PER GSF TOTAL COST PER NSF AVERAGE COST PER UNIT

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

$16,369

1 of61

Balboa Reservoir Square Foot Summary per Unit Type

Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom TH 2B TH 3B SH Standard SH Suite Totals Building GSF Net Residential Area % efficiency

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

Bedroom/Bath

No.

Total SF

0/1 1/1 2/2 2/2.5 3/2.5 0/1 2/1

45 217 190 59 58 362 121

515 750 1100 1250 1550 400 800

23175.00 162750.00 209000.00 73750.00 89900.00 144800.00 96800.00

1052

760.62

800175.00 963591.00 800175.00 83% 163416.00

2 of61

Balboa Reservoir Division / Description Division 2 - Demolition Division 2 - Sitework Division 2 - Landscape Division 2 - Monument Allowance Division 3 - Concrete Division 4 - CMU & Masonry Division 5 - Structural Steel Division 5 - Misc. Metals Division 6 - Rough Carpentry Division 6 - Finish Carpentry Division 6 - Cabinets Division 6 - Countertops Division 7 - Waterproofing Division 7 - Insulation Division 7 - Fireproofing Division 7 - Roofing Division 7 - Caulking Division 7 - Flashing Division 8 - Windows Division 8 - Doors Division 8 - OH Doors Division 8 - Storefront Division 8 - Mirrors / Shower Doors Division 9 - Drywall Division 9 - Plaster Division 9 - Scaffold Division 9 - Tile Division 9 - Resilient Division 9 - Carpet Division 9 - Painting Division 10 - Bath Acc. Division 10 - Striping/Signage Division 10 - Trash Chutes Division 10 - Mailboxes Division 10 - Common Bath Allowance Division 10 - Bike Racks Division 10 - Awnings Division 11 - Appliances Division 12 - Blinds Division 14 - Elevators Division 15 - Fire Prot. Division 15 - Plumbing Division 15 - HVAC Division 16 - Electrical Division 16 - Tele/Data Division 16 - Security

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

Total $1,905,750.00 $8,652,691.50 $1,427,248.69 $50,000.00 $20,511,381.32 $2,087,277.51 $943,500.00 $1,058,520.00 $27,020,518.00 $1,690,564.82 $4,133,750.00 $1,710,995.00 $1,696,372.73 $1,411,529.70 $498,400.00 $2,527,223.35 $246,753.00 $1,348,640.00 $2,523,624.00 $2,762,050.00 $175,000.00 $132,000.00 $223,750.00 $12,872,963.34 $5,428,566.00 $987,012.00 $781,830.00 $624,089.00 $1,601,432.79 $4,169,673.38 $279,475.00 $45,000.00 $720,000.00 $157,800.00 $75,000.00 $45,000.00 $50,000.00 $3,682,000.00 $394,804.80 $2,865,000.00 $3,301,992.05 $20,028,308.63 $8,994,193.83 $14,255,603.08 $1,600,350.00 $300,000.00

Per Unit $1,811.55 $8,224.99 $1,356.70 $47.53 $19,497.51 $1,984.10 $896.86 $1,006.20 $25,684.90 $1,607.00 $3,929.42 $1,626.42 $1,612.52 $1,341.76 $473.76 $2,402.30 $234.56 $1,281.98 $2,398.88 $2,625.52 $166.35 $125.48 $212.69 $12,236.66 $5,160.23 $938.22 $743.18 $593.24 $1,522.27 $3,963.57 $265.66 $42.78 $684.41 $150.00 $71.29 $42.78 $47.53 $3,500.00 $375.29 $2,723.38 $3,138.78 $19,038.32 $8,549.61 $13,550.95 $1,521.25 $285.17

Per GSF $1.98 $8.98 $1.48 $0.05 $21.29 $2.17 $0.98 $1.10 $28.04 $1.75 $4.29 $1.78 $1.76 $1.46 $0.52 $2.62 $0.26 $1.40 $2.62 $2.87 $0.18 $0.14 $0.23 $13.36 $5.63 $1.02 $0.81 $0.65 $1.66 $4.33 $0.29 $0.05 $0.75 $0.16 $0.08 $0.05 $0.05 $3.82 $0.41 $2.97 $3.43 $20.79 $9.33 $14.79 $1.66 $0.31

Per NSF $2.38 $10.81 $1.78 $0.06 $25.63 $2.61 $1.18 $1.32 $33.77 $2.11 $5.17 $2.14 $2.12 $1.76 $0.62 $3.16 $0.31 $1.69 $3.15 $3.45 $0.22 $0.16 $0.28 $16.09 $6.78 $1.23 $0.98 $0.78 $2.00 $5.21 $0.35 $0.06 $0.90 $0.20 $0.09 $0.06 $0.06 $4.60 $0.49 $3.58 $4.13 $25.03 $11.24 $17.82 $2.00 $0.37

3 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM 02900 DIVISION 2 EARTH WORK Misc Earthwork Mass Excavation Import Soils Concrete Curb SWPPP - Allowance Street sidewalk replacement - Allow Curb & gutter Pool Allowance Landscape Allowance Monument sign Allowance SS System SD System Domestic Water System Fire Water System Water Service Valves, Hydrants, Etc. Joint Trench - Gas, Elect., CATV, Tel Allow for utility connections Catch basin Asphalt paving Temporary Facilities Temporary Fencing Temporary Water Safety Equipment Small Tools Surveying Daily Cleanup Debris Removal

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM

762300 100000 20000 12609 1 14850 2475 3 237875 1 1 1 1 1 31 2500 1 14 304782 24 1 24 1 1 1 24 24

UOM

AREA

sf cy cy lf ls sf lf ea sf ls ls ls ls ls ea lf ls ea sf mos ls mos ls ls ls mos mos

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

762300 100000 20000 12609 1 14850 2475 3 237875 1 1 1 1 1 31 2500 1 14 304782 24 1 24 1 1 1 24 24

$/UNIT

$2.50 $25.00 $25.00 $15.00 $150,000.00 $10.00 $35.00 $160,000.00 $6.00 $50,000.00 $250,000.00 $850,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $8,500.00 $250.00 $150,000.00 $2,500.00 $4.00 $2,400.00 $15,000.00 $1,200.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $8,500.00 $9,600.00

02900 DIVISION 2 EARTH WORK 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Structural Concrete - Market Rate StructuralConcrete - Student Housing

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

TOTAL $

$1,905,750.00 $2,500,000.00 $500,000.00 $189,141.53 $150,000.00 $148,500.00 $86,621.46 $480,000.00 $1,427,248.69 $50,000.00 $250,000.00 $850,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $263,500.00 $625,000.00 $150,000.00 $35,000.00 $1,219,128.52 $57,600.00 $15,000.00 $28,800.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $204,000.00 $230,400.00 $12,035,690.19

160994 91738

sf sf

SHELL SHELL

1 1

160994 91738

$55.00 $80.00

$8,854,684.79 $7,339,011.04

4 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM Slab on Grade & footings - Townhomes Allow for gyp-crete & acousti-mat Planter Sub Slab - Allow Site Concrete Allowance

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM UOM 100000 sf 563522 gsf 8500 sf 1 ls

AREA SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL 1 1 1 1

100000 563522 8500 1

$/UNIT $22.00 $2.75 $8.00 $500,000.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE 04000 DIVISION 4 Masonry 04000 CMU CMU walls at utility rooms in garage - Allow CMU planter walls at podium - Allow Pavers at podium common areas Allow for false stone at exterior entry elevation Pavers at grade CMU walls at parking separation 11' high 04000 DIVISION 4 CMU

05000 DIVISION 5 METAL 05120 structural steel Pre-Cast concrete stairs Allow for back bone steel Allow for Misc. Metals (Elev. Hoist beams, bollards, etc.) Metal fence at pool Balcony/patio railing allowance Allow for gates at parking Metal fencing at garage parking 05000 DIVISION 5 METAL 06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS 06100 Rough Carpentry Wood Framing Structure - Market Rate Wood Framing Structure - Townhomes Wood Framing Structure - Student Housing

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

TOTAL $ $2,200,000.00 $1,549,685.50 $68,000.00 $500,000.00 $20,511,381.32

20000 8500 25870 1200 37155 0

sf sf sf sf sf sf

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1 1 1 1

20000 8500 25870 1200 37155 0

$20.00 $22.00 $20.00 $45.00 $25.00 $20.00

$400,000.00 $187,000.00 $517,401.25 $54,000.00 $928,876.26 $0.00 $2,087,277.51

74 0

flt sf

SHELL SHELL

1 1

74 0

$12,750.00 $2.00

$943,500.00 $0.00

1 ls 600 lf 6912 lf 5 ea 500 lf

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1 1 1

1 600 6912 5 500

$350,000.00 $110.00 $85.00 $35,000.00 $110.00

$350,000.00 $66,000.00 $587,520.00 $175,000.00 $55,000.00 $2,177,020.00

493656 gsf 180015 gsf 289920 gsf

SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1

493656 180015 289920

$28.00 $26.00 $28.00

$13,822,368.00 $4,680,390.00 $8,117,760.00

5 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM Allowance for wood/metal sunshade and trellis elements on structure 06100 Rough Carpentry 06200 Finish Carpentry Paint grade MDF no profile base at corridors - Market Paint grade MDF no profile base at corridors - Student

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL

UOM

AREA

$/UNIT

SHELL

$400,000.00

$400,000.00 $27,020,518.00

12886 6489

lf lf

SHELL SHELL

1 1

12886 6489

$4.00 $4.00

$51,544.41 $25,955.76

06200 Finish Carpentry 06410 Cabinets & casework Common Area Casework Allowance - Market Common Area Casework Allowance - Student 06410 Cabinets & casework

$77,500.17

1 1

ls ls

SHELL SHELL

1 1

$15,000.00 $10,000.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Hot rubberized waterproofing at Podium & patios Dex-O-Tex at elevated Balconies Fluid applied waterproofing at Podium Planted Areas Vertical waterproofing at garage walls 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Spray K-13 on under side of podium Insulation at corridor walls Insulation at corridor & common area ceilings 07200 Insulation

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

TOTAL $

$15,000.00 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 $27,123,018.17

25870 32832 28116 67826

sf sf sf sf

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1 1

25870 32832 28116 67826

$12.00 $11.00 $7.50 $12.00

$310,440.75 $361,152.00 $210,867.99 $813,912.00 $1,696,372.73

174375 48580

sf sf sf

SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1

0 174375 48580

$3.00 $0.40 $0.65

$0.00 $69,750.15 $31,576.89 $101,327.05

6 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

sf sf

SHELL SHELL

1 1

108300 252732

$7.00 $7.00

$758,100.00 $1,769,123.35 $2,527,223.35

0 ea 0 ea 458 ea 493656 sf

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1 1

0 0 458 493656

$175.00 $2,000.00 $250.00 $2.50

$0.00 $0.00 $114,500.00 $1,234,140.00 $1,348,640.00

SHELL

$5,000.00

$0.00

493506 sf 5 ea

SHELL SHELL

1 1

493506 5

$0.50 $5,000.00

$246,753.00 $25,000.00 $271,753.00

07500 Roofing. Comp. Shingle Roof Built up 07500 Roofing.

108300 252732

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Window GSM Head & sill flashing Window cornice detail - copper Patio Door flashing. Miscellaneous flashings, gutters and downspouts. 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Expansion Joint Allowance (at elevated walkways) Allow for Caulking & Sealants at exteriors and around windows Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping at garage 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING

TOTAL $

$5,945,316.13

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS 08100: Windows, Steel doors, frames & hardware. Vinyl Window and Sliding Glass Door - Allowance Balcony doors - single Steel doors @ stairs, lobbies & utility rooms & exits

98701 sf 458 ea 175 ea

SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1

98701 458 175

$20.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00

08100: Windows, Steel doors, frames & hardware.

08810 Store Front Storefront at Lobby Entry & rec. room

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

$1,974,024.00 $549,600.00 $210,000.00 $2,733,624.00

1500

SHELL

1500

$80.00

$120,000.00

7 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM Storefront doors at Retail and Common Areas 08810 Store Front

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM

UOM 8 ea

AREA SHELL

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL 1

$/UNIT $1,500.00

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS 09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board Type Elevator shaft walls and ceiling Trash chute shaft Stairwells

TOTAL $ $12,000.00 $132,000.00 $2,865,624.00

33000 17820 46200

sf sf sf

SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1

33000 17820 46200

$4.00 $4.00 $6.50

$132,000.00 $71,280.00 $300,300.00

154633

SHELL

154633

$2.50

$386,583.04

Gypsum board - Common Area Ceilings - Market

82523

SHELL

82523

$4.00

$330,092.17

Gypsum board-Common Area Walls - Student

77867

SHELL

77867

$2.50

$194,668.22

Gypsum board - Common Area Ceilings - Student 09250 Gypsum Board Type

48580

SHELL

48580

$4.00

$194,319.35 $1,609,242.78

Allow for scaffold

493506

SHELL

493506

$2.00

$987,012.00

Lath and Plaster - Market

230805

SHELL

230805

$11.00

$2,538,855.00

Lath and Plaster - Townhomes

168250

SHELL

168250

$11.00

$1,850,750.00

94451

SHELL

94451

$11.00

$1,038,961.00

Gypsum board-Common Area Walls - Market

09270 Plaster & Scaffold

Lath and Plaster - Student

09270 Portland Cement Plaster

$6,415,578.00

09300 Tile

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

8 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM Allow Hard flooring at lobby, rec. room, business ctr, etc.

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM 7500

UOM

AREA

SHELL

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL 1

7500

$/UNIT $20.00

09300 Tile

TOTAL $ $150,000.00 $150,000.00

09682 Carpet Rolled residential grade carpet at corridors 09682 Carpet

5398 sy

SHELL

5398

$30.00

$161,932.79 $161,932.79

09701 Sound Control Matting 0 09701 Sound Control Matting 09901 Residential Painting Exterior Painting - trim & metals Interior at rec. room, lobby and entry ceilings and walls Int. @ garage walls & Ceilings - NIC Int. @ corridors & common areas 09901 Residential Painting

$0.00

493506

SHELL

493506

$1.25

$616,882.50

7500 0

SHELL

7500

$2.50

$18,750.00

172647

SHELL

172647

$1.00

$172,647.13 $808,279.63

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10000 Specialties Garage signage & striping - Allow Mailboxes Canvas awnings at exterior elevations - Allow Bike Rack Allowance Common Area Bathroom Allowance Trash chutes - Allow 10000 Specialties

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

$9,145,033.19

1 ls 1 ls 1 ls 1 ls 5 ea 18 ea

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 5 18

$45,000.00 $157,800.00 $50,000.00 $45,000.00 $15,000.00 $40,000.00

$45,000.00 $157,800.00 $50,000.00 $45,000.00 $75,000.00 $720,000.00 $1,092,800.00

9 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES

TOTAL $ $1,092,800.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS 12510 Furnishings

Window blinds at units 12510 Furnishings

98701

SHELL

98701

$4.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS DIVISION 14 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION Elevators (Stops) - Market Elevators (Stops) - Student Smoke doors Cab allowance Residential lobby at 1st level finishes Elevator Lobby finishes -Other than 1st floor DIVISION 14 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION

$394,804.80 $394,804.80 $394,804.80

ea ea ea ea ea ea

SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL SHELL

1 1 1 1 1 1

35 48 83 15 45 38

$20,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00

$700,000.00 $960,000.00 $415,000.00 $150,000.00 $450,000.00 $190,000.00 $2,865,000.00

344470 gsf

SHELL

344470

$2.75

$947,291.25

35 48 83 15 45 38

15000 DIVISION 15 MECHANICAL 15300: Fire protection system Fire protection garage level Allow for fire pump Fire protection at rec. room, lobby Fire protection Corridors & common areas

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

SHELL

$100,000.00

$0.00

7500

SHELL

7500

$2.75

$20,625.00

48580

SHELL

48580

$2.75

$133,594.55

10 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

15400: Plumbing System Plumbing at garage

344470 gsf

SHELL

344470

$3.00

$1,033,408.63

Plumbing roof drains, overflows and piping

5 ea

SHELL

$125,000.00

$625,000.00

Plumbing at trash rooms, janitor closet etc - allow

SHELL

$35,000.00

344470 gsf

SHELL

344470

$1.50

$516,704.32

6 ea

SHELL

$55,000.00

$330,000.00

SHELL

48580

$3.00

$145,739.51

15500 Mechanical System HVAC System at garage HVAC System at lobby - split system HVAC System at corridors & common areas - heat & vent only

48580

15000 DIVISION 15 MECHANICAL

$3,787,363.26

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL 16000 Electrical Electrical System for Garage

344470

SHELL

344470

$3.50

$1,205,643.41

Allow for exterior lighting

SHELL

$150,000.00

Allow for security system

SHELL

$300,000.00

48580

SHELL

48580

$2.00

$97,159.67 $1,752,803.08

Electrical for Circulation & Mechanical & corridor lighting 16000 Electrical 16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

$1,752,803.08

11 of61

Balboa Reservoir ITEM

Residential Shell and Residential Parking QTY UOM Div 2 $12,035,690.19 Div 3 $20,511,381.32 Div 4 $2,087,277.51 Div 5 $2,177,020.00 Div 6 $27,123,018.17 Div 7 $5,945,316.13 Div 8 $2,865,624.00 Div 9 $9,145,033.19 Div 10 $1,092,800.00 Div 11 $0.00 Div 12 $394,804.80 Div 13 Div 14 $2,865,000.00 Div 15 $3,787,363.26 Div 16 $1,752,803.08 $91,783,131.65

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY UOM TOTAL

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126 838126

$14 $24 $2 $3 $32 $7 $3 $11 $1 $0 $0 $0 $3 $5 $2

838126

$110

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

12 of61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

515

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

05000 DIVISION 5 METAL Included in shell cost 05000 DIVISION 5 METAL 06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS 06100 Rough Carpentry Misc rough carpentry (backing, door box, etc..) 06100 Rough Carpentry 06200 Finish Carpentry Pre-primed Pine crown molding Medicine cabinets - prefinished w/mirror Pre-primed MDF Baseboard Pre-primed MDF Casing - door frames ( both sides of opening) Shelving: Bedroom closet Shelving: Laundry/Linen Shelving: Foyer Closet Allow. Misc. Millwork per residential Units 06200 Finish Carpentry

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

$0.00

FLAT

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 1 170

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45

0 45 7648

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $4,500.00 $19,119.38

102 6 10 3 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45 45 45

4590 270 450 135 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$11,475.00 $2,160.00 $3,600.00 $1,080.00 $0.00 $41,934.38

13 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

515

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ea sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45

ITEM 06410 custom casework Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Engineered Quartz Countertops - Kitchens Engineered Quartz Countertops - Baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1 35 6

UOM TOTAL 45 1575 270

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$4,250.00 $35.00 $35.00

$191,250.00 $55,125.00 $9,450.00

06410 custom casework

$255,825.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$297,759.38

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

1530 515

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

45 45

68830 23175

$0.40 $0.65

$27,531.90 $15,063.75 $42,595.65

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

14 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

515

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

ITEM 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL 45

$/UNIT $450.00

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS 08100: Steel doors, frames & hardware. Unit entry doors, frames & hardware Unit exterior storage doors, frames & hardware Unit interior doors, frames & hardware - Single. Unit interior doors, frames & hardware - Pocket. Unit interior doors, frames & h/w - Double Sliding Unit interior doors, frames & h/w - Double Unit interior doors, frames & h/w - Double bi-fold 08100: Steel doors, frames & hardware.

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$20,250.00 $20,250.00

$62,845.65

1 0 2 0 0 0 0

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45 45 45 45 45

45 0 90 0 0 0 0

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass

TOTAL $

$33,750.00 $0.00 $27,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,750.00

$0.00

0 12

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

45 45

0 540

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $66,150.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

15 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

515

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

Gypsum board to interior of exterior walls - 1 layer

158

FLAT

7110

$3.00

$21,330.00

Gypsum board to interior of corridor walls - 2 layers Gypsum board to interior partitions - 1 layer on each side Gypsum board to party walls - 2 layers Gypsum board to interior ceilings - 2 layers Gypsum board to dropped soffits Shaft wall system at interior shafts 09250 Gypsum Board Type

158

FLAT

7088

$3.00

$21,262.50

429 508 515 129 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45 45 45

19294 22838 23175 5794 3600

$4.25 $3.00 $3.25 $6.50 $4.00

$81,998.44 $68,512.50 $75,318.75 $37,659.38 $14,400.00 $320,481.56

09270 Portland Cement Plaster Included in shell cost 09270 Portland Cement Plaster 09300 Tile Shower Pan Cultured Marble at Guest Bath Tub / Shower surround Ceramic Tile at Tub / Shower surrounds Ceramic Tile at kitchen floor Ceramic Tile at bathroom floor Ceramic Tile at Entry 09300 Tile

$0.00

FLAT

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 0 45 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45 45 45

0 0 0 2025 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,375.00 $0.00 $30,375.00

FLAT

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

16 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

ITEM

QTY UOM 75 0 11 12

UOM sf sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

FLAT

Vinyl at Kitchen Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

515 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

45 45 45 45

3375 0 495 540

$/UNIT $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $2.50

1920

$20.00

TOTAL $ $20,250.00 $0.00 $2,970.00 $1,350.00 $24,570.00

$38,400.00

09682 Carpet Rolled residential grade carpet - Bedrooms & halls 09682 Carpet 09701 Sound Control Matting Allow quiet-core in bathroom and kitchen floors 09701 Sound Control Matting 09901 Residential Painting Paint Interior walls of units Paint doors and jambs - Single Paint doors and jambs - Double Paint base board Paint crown Paint closet shelving - allow 09901 Residential Painting

$38,400.00

FLAT

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

2196 3 0 170 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

45 45 45 45 45 45

98798 135 0 7648 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$74,098.13 $10,125.00 $0.00 $3,823.88 $0.00 $0.00 $88,047.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

$501,873.56

FLAT

$175.00

$7,875.00 $7,875.00

17 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

515

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

TOTAL $ $7,875.00

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

45 45

45 0

$3,500.00 $675.00

$157,500.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$157,500.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

DIVISION 14 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION Included in shell cost DIVISION 14 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION 15000 DIVISION 15 MECHANICAL 15300: Fire protection system Fire protection system 15400: Plumbing System Building plumbing system 15500 Mechanical System Building mechanical system (Heat Only) 15000 DIVISION 15 MECHANICAL

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

$0.00 $0.00

515 5 515

FLAT

23175

$2.75

$63,731.25

fixt.

FLAT

225

$2,800.00

$630,000.00

FLAT

23175

$10.00

$231,750.00 $925,481.25

18 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

Studio

0/1

515

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

45 45

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

515 515

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

23175 23175

$16.00 $2.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

TOTAL $

$370,800.00 $46,350.00 $417,150.00 $417,150.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $297,759.38 $62,845.65 $66,150.00 $501,873.56 $7,875.00 $157,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $925,481.25 $417,150.00 $2,436,634.84

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175 23175

$0 $0 $0 $0 $13 $3 $3 $22 $0 $7 $0 $0 $0 $40 $18

23175

$105 $54,147.44

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - Studio - 515 SF

/sf /unit

19 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

750

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

$0.00

FLAT

217

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 1 248

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217

0 217 53708

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $21,700.00 $134,268.75

204 11 6 7 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217 217 217

44268 2387 1302 1519 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$110,670.00 $19,096.00 $10,416.00 $12,152.00 $0.00 $308,302.75

20 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

750

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ea sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217

ITEM 06410 custom casework Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Engineered Quartz Countertops - Kitchens Engineered Quartz Countertops - Baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1 57 6

UOM TOTAL 217 12369 1302

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$4,250.00 $35.00 $35.00

$922,250.00 $432,915.00 $45,570.00

06410 custom casework

$1,400,735.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$1,709,037.75

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

217

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

1400 750

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

217 217

303800 162750

$0.40 $0.65

$121,520.00 $105,787.50 $227,307.50

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

21 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

750

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

217

ITEM 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL 217

$/UNIT $450.00

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$97,650.00 $97,650.00

$324,957.50

1 0 5 0 0 0 0

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217 217 217 217 217

217 0 1085 0 0 0 0

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass

TOTAL $

$162,750.00 $0.00 $325,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $488,250.00

$0.00

0 12

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

217 217

0 2604

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $26,040.00 $26,040.00 $514,290.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

22 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

750

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

Gypsum board to interior of exterior walls - 1 layer

193

FLAT

217

41773

$3.00

$125,317.50

263

FLAT

217

56963

$3.00

$170,887.50

578 508 750 188 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217 217 217

125318 110128 162750 40688 17360

$4.25 $3.00 $3.25 $6.50 $4.00

$532,599.38 $330,382.50 $528,937.50 $264,468.75 $69,440.00 $2,022,033.13

$0.00

FLAT

217

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 0 41 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217 217 217

0 0 0 8897 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $133,455.00 $0.00 $133,455.00

FLAT

217

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

23 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

ITEM

QTY UOM 75 0 11 12

UOM sf sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

FLAT

Vinyl at Kitchen Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

750 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

217 217 217 217

16275 0 2387 2604

$/UNIT $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $2.50

217

15021

$20.00

TOTAL $ $97,650.00 $0.00 $14,322.00 $6,510.00 $118,482.00

$300,424.44

FLAT

217

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

2868 6 0 248 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

217 217 217 217 217 217

622248 1302 0 53708 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$466,685.63 $97,650.00 $0.00 $26,853.75 $0.00 $0.00 $591,189.38

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

$3,165,583.94

FLAT

217

$175.00

$37,975.00 $37,975.00

24 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

750

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

TOTAL $ $37,975.00

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

217 217

217 0

$3,500.00 $675.00

$759,500.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$759,500.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

217

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

$0.00 $0.00

750 5 750

FLAT

217

162750

fixt.

FLAT

217

1085

$2,800.00 $3,038,000.00

FLAT

217

162750

$10.00 $1,627,500.00

$2.75

$447,562.50

$5,113,062.50

25 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

1 Bedroom

1/1

217

750

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

217 217

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

750 750

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

162750 162750

TOTAL $

$16.00 $2,604,000.00 $2.00 $325,500.00 $2,929,500.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

$2,929,500.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,709,037.75 $324,957.50 $514,290.00 $3,165,583.94 $37,975.00 $759,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,113,062.50 $2,929,500.00 $14,553,906.69

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750 162750

$0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $2 $3 $19 $0 $5 $0 $0 $0 $31 $18

162750

$89 $67,068.69

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 1 Bedroom - 750 SF

/sf /unit

26 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

1100

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

$0.00

FLAT

190

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 2 363

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190

0 380 68970

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $38,000.00 $172,425.00

312 24 13 2 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190 190 190

59280 4614 2495 414 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$148,200.00 $36,909.87 $19,959.42 $3,313.21 $0.00 $418,807.50

27 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

1100

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ea sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190

ITEM 06410 custom casework Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Engineered Quartz Countertops - Kitchens Engineered Quartz Countertops - Baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1 54 16

UOM TOTAL 190 10260 3040

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$4,250.00 $35.00 $35.00

$807,500.00 $359,100.00 $106,400.00

06410 custom casework

$1,273,000.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$1,691,807.50

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

190

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

2100 1100

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

190 190

399000 209000

$0.40 $0.65

$159,600.00 $135,850.00 $295,450.00

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

28 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

1100

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

190

ITEM 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL 190

$/UNIT $450.00

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$85,500.00 $85,500.00

$380,950.00

1 0 7 0 1 0 0

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190 190 190 190 190

190 0 1330 0 190 0 0

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass

TOTAL $

$142,500.00 $0.00 $399,000.00 $0.00 $66,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $608,000.00

$0.00

0 32

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

190 190

0 6080

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $60,800.00 $60,800.00 $668,800.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

29 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

1100

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

Gypsum board to interior of exterior walls - 1 layer

350

FLAT

190

66500

$3.00

$199,500.00

306

FLAT

190

58188

$3.00

$174,562.50

1269 543 1100 275 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190 190 190

241063 103075 209000 52250 15200

$4.25 $1,024,515.63 $3.00 $309,225.00 $3.25 $679,250.00 $6.50 $339,625.00 $4.00 $60,800.00 $2,787,478.13

$0.00

FLAT

190

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 99 0 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190 190 190

0 0 18810 0 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $282,150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $282,150.00

FLAT

190

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

30 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

ITEM

QTY UOM 100 0 11 11

UOM sf sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

FLAT

Vinyl at Kitchen Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1100 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

190 190 190 190

19000 0 2090 2090

$/UNIT $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $2.50

190

18789

$20.00

TOTAL $ $114,000.00 $0.00 $12,540.00 $5,225.00 $131,765.00

$375,777.78

FLAT

190

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

4836 8 1 363 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

190 190 190 190 190 190

918888 1520 190 68970 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$689,165.63 $114,000.00 $15,200.00 $34,485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $852,850.63

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

$4,430,021.53

FLAT

190

380

$175.00

$66,500.00 $66,500.00

31 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

1100

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

TOTAL $ $66,500.00

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

190 190

190 0

$3,500.00 $675.00

$665,000.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$665,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

190

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

$0.00 $0.00

1100 8 1100

FLAT

190

209000

fixt.

FLAT

190

1520

$2,800.00 $4,256,000.00

FLAT

190

209000

$10.00 $2,090,000.00

$2.75

$574,750.00

$6,920,750.00

32 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

2 Bedroom

2/2

190

1100

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

190 190

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1100 1100

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

209000 209000

TOTAL $

$16.00 $3,344,000.00 $2.00 $418,000.00 $3,762,000.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

$3,762,000.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,691,807.50 $380,950.00 $668,800.00 $4,430,021.53 $66,500.00 $665,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,920,750.00 $3,762,000.00 $18,585,829.03

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000 209000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $8 $2 $3 $21 $0 $3 $0 $0 $0 $33 $18

209000

$89 $97,820.15

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - 2 Bedroom - 1100 SF

/sf /unit

33 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

1250

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

$0.00

FLAT

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 3 413

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59

0 177 24338

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $17,700.00 $60,843.75

346 24 13 2 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59 59 59

20414 1433 775 129 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$51,035.00 $11,461.49 $6,197.93 $1,028.84 $0.00 $148,267.00

34 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

1250

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ea sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59

ITEM 06410 custom casework Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Engineered Quartz Countertops - Kitchens Engineered Quartz Countertops - Baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1 54 16

UOM TOTAL 59 3186 944

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$4,250.00 $35.00 $35.00

$250,750.00 $111,510.00 $33,040.00

06410 custom casework

$395,300.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$543,567.00

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

3713 1250

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

59 59

219038 73750

$0.40 $0.65

$87,615.00 $47,937.50 $135,552.50

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

35 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

1250

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

ITEM 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL 59

$/UNIT $450.00

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$26,550.00 $26,550.00

$162,102.50

1 0 8 0 1 0 0

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59 59 59 59 59

59 0 472 0 59 0 0

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass

TOTAL $

$44,250.00 $0.00 $141,600.00 $0.00 $20,650.00 $0.00 $0.00 $206,500.00

$0.00

0 45

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

59 59

0 2655

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $26,550.00 $26,550.00 $233,050.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

36 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

1250

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

808

FLAT

47643

$3.00

$142,927.50

FLAT

$3.00

$0.00

1501 1330 1250 313 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59 59 59

88559 78470 73750 18438 4720

$4.25 $3.00 $3.25 $6.50 $4.00

$376,375.75 $235,410.00 $239,687.50 $119,843.75 $18,880.00 $1,133,124.50

Gypsum board to interior of exterior walls - 1 layer Gypsum board to interior of corridor walls - 2 layers Gypsum board to interior partitions - 1 layer on each side Gypsum board to party walls - 2 layers Gypsum board to interior ceilings - 2 layers Gypsum board to dropped soffits Shaft wall system at interior shafts 09250 Gypsum Board Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$0.00

FLAT

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 0 94 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59 59 59

0 0 0 5546 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $83,190.00 $0.00 $83,190.00

FLAT

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

37 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

ITEM

QTY UOM 0 65 11 12

UOM sf sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

120

FLAT

Vinyl at Kitchen Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1250 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

59 59 59 59

0 3835 649 708

$/UNIT $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $2.50

7080

$20.00

TOTAL $ $0.00 $23,010.00 $3,894.00 $1,770.00 $28,674.00

$141,600.00

FLAT

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

6390 9 1 413 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

59 59 59 59 59 59

376981 531 59 24338 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$282,735.38 $39,825.00 $4,720.00 $12,168.75 $0.00 $0.00 $339,449.13

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

$1,726,037.63

FLAT

177

$175.00

$30,975.00 $30,975.00

38 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

1250

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

TOTAL $ $30,975.00

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

59 59

59 0

$3,500.00 $675.00

$206,500.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$206,500.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

$0.00 $0.00

1250 9 1250

FLAT

73750

fixt.

FLAT

531

FLAT

73750

$2.75

$202,812.50

$2,500.00 $1,327,500.00 $10.00

$737,500.00 $2,267,812.50

39 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 2B

2/2.5

1250

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

59 59

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1250 1250

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

73750 73750

TOTAL $

$16.00 $1,180,000.00 $2.00 $147,500.00 $1,327,500.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

$1,327,500.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $543,567.00 $162,102.50 $233,050.00 $1,726,037.63 $30,975.00 $206,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,267,812.50 $1,327,500.00 $6,497,544.63

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750 73750

$0 $0 $0 $0 $7 $2 $3 $23 $0 $3 $0 $0 $0 $31 $18

73750

$88 $110,127.88

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 2B - 1250 SF

/sf /unit

40 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

1550

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

$0.00

FLAT

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 0 512

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58

0 0 29667

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $0.00 $74,167.50

574 45 18 4 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58 58 58

33292 2584 1049 248 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$83,230.00 $20,674.38 $8,390.02 $1,981.12 $0.00 $188,443.03

41 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

1550

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ea sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58

ITEM 06410 custom casework Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Engineered Quartz Countertops - Kitchens Engineered Quartz Countertops - Baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1 6 16

UOM TOTAL 58 348 928

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$4,250.00 $35.00 $35.00

$246,500.00 $12,180.00 $32,480.00

06410 custom casework

$291,160.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$479,603.03

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

4604 1550

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

58 58

267003 89900

$0.40 $0.65

$106,801.20 $58,435.00 $165,236.20

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

42 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

1550

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

ITEM 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL 58

$/UNIT $450.00

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$26,100.00 $26,100.00

$191,336.20

1 0 10 0 4 0 1

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58 58 58 58 58

58 0 580 0 232 0 58

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass

TOTAL $

$43,500.00 $0.00 $174,000.00 $0.00 $81,200.00 $0.00 $20,300.00 $319,000.00

$0.00

0 56

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

58 58

0 3248

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $32,480.00 $32,480.00 $351,480.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

43 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

1550

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

2033

FLAT

117914

$3.00

$353,742.00

FLAT

$3.00

$0.00

2014 931 1550 388 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58 58 58

116812 53998 89900 22475 4640

$4.25 $3.00 $3.25 $6.50 $4.00

$496,451.00 $161,994.00 $292,175.00 $146,087.50 $18,560.00 $1,469,009.50

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$0.00

FLAT

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 0 118 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58 58 58

0 0 0 6844 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $102,660.00 $0.00 $102,660.00

FLAT

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

44 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

ITEM

QTY UOM 75 0 12 12

UOM sf sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

149

FLAT

Vinyl at Kitchen Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1550 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

58 58 58 58

4350 0 696 696

$/UNIT $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $1.50

8668

$20.00

TOTAL $ $21,750.00 $0.00 $3,480.00 $1,044.00 $26,274.00

$173,355.56

FLAT

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

8542 11 5 512 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

58 58 58 58 58 58

495436 638 290 29667 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$371,577.00 $47,850.00 $23,200.00 $14,833.50 $0.00 $0.00 $457,460.50

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

$2,228,759.56

FLAT

174

$175.00

$30,450.00 $30,450.00

45 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

1550

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

TOTAL $ $30,450.00

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

58 58

58 0

$3,500.00 $675.00

$203,000.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$203,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

$0.00 $0.00

1550 9 1550

FLAT

89900

fixt.

FLAT

522

FLAT

89900

$2.75

$247,225.00

$2,500.00 $1,305,000.00 $10.00

$899,000.00 $2,451,225.00

46 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

TH 3B

3/2.5

1550

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

58 58

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

1550 1550

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

89900 89900

TOTAL $

$16.00 $1,438,400.00 $2.00 $179,800.00 $1,618,200.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

$1,618,200.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $479,603.03 $191,336.20 $351,480.00 $2,228,759.56 $30,450.00 $203,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,451,225.00 $1,618,200.00 $7,554,053.78

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900 89900

$0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $2 $4 $25 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $27 $18

89900

$84 $130,242.31

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - TH 3B - 1550 SF

/sf /unit

47 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

400

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

FLAT

362

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 1 132

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

362 362 362

0 362 47784

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $36,200.00 $119,460.00

136 0 10 5 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

362 362 362 362 362

49232 0 3620 1810 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$123,080.00 $0.00 $28,960.00 $14,480.00 $0.00 $322,180.00

06410 custom casework

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

48 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

QTY UOM 1

UOM ea

AREA FLAT

ITEM Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Plastic Laminate counter tops & back splash Kitchens Plastic Laminate counter tops & back splash at baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

400 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT TOTAL $ $3,500.00 $1,267,000.00

362

FLAT

362

12670

$25.00

$316,750.00

FLAT

362

2172

$25.00

$54,300.00

06410 custom casework

$1,638,050.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$1,960,230.00

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

362

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

1188 400

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

362 362

430056 144800

$0.40 $0.65

$172,022.40 $94,120.00 $266,142.40

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

49 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

400

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

362

07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL

362

$/UNIT

$450.00

0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$162,900.00 $162,900.00

$429,042.40

1 0 3 0 0 0 0

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

362 362 362 362 362 362 362

362 0 1086 0 0 0 0

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass

TOTAL $

$271,500.00 $0.00 $325,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $597,300.00

$0.00

0 12

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

362 362

0 4344

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $43,440.00 $43,440.00 $640,740.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

50 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

400

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

Gypsum board to interior of exterior walls - 1 layer

158

FLAT

362

57015

$3.00

$171,045.00

158

FLAT

362

57015

$3.00

$171,045.00

429 508 400 100 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

362 362 362 362 362

155208 183715 144800 36200 28960

$4.25 $3.00 $3.25 $6.50 $4.00

$659,631.88 $551,145.00 $470,600.00 $235,300.00 $115,840.00 $2,374,606.88

$0.00

FLAT

362

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 0 0 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

362 362 362 362 362

0 0 0 0 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FLAT

362

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

FLAT

362

18100

$5.00

$90,500.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring Vinyl at Kitchen

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

51 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

ITEM

QTY UOM 45 12 12

UOM sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT

FLAT

Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

400 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

362 362 362

16290 4344 4344

$/UNIT $5.00 $5.00 $1.50

TOTAL $ $81,450.00 $21,720.00 $6,516.00 $200,186.00

362

11785

$20.00

$235,702.22

FLAT

362

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

2080 4 0 132 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

362 362 362 362 362 362

752960 1448 0 47784 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$564,720.00 $108,600.00 $0.00 $23,892.00 $0.00 $0.00 $697,212.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

$3,507,707.10

FLAT

362

$175.00

$63,350.00 $63,350.00

52 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

400

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

362 362

ITEM 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL

362 0

$/UNIT

TOTAL $ $63,350.00

$3,500.00 $1,267,000.00 $675.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$1,267,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

362

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

400 5 400

FLAT

362

144800

fixt.

FLAT

362

1810

$2,800.00 $5,068,000.00

FLAT

362

144800

$10.00 $1,448,000.00

$2.75

$398,200.00

$6,914,200.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

53 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Standard

0/1

362

400

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

362 362

ITEM 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

400 400

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

144800 144800

TOTAL $

$16.00 $2,316,800.00 $2.00 $289,600.00 $2,606,400.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

$2,606,400.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,960,230.00 $429,042.40 $640,740.00 $3,507,707.10 $63,350.00 $1,267,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,914,200.00 $2,606,400.00 $17,388,669.50

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800 144800

$0 $0 $0 $0 $14 $3 $4 $24 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $48 $18

144800

$120 $48,035.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Standard - 400 SF

/sf /unit

54 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

800

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING Included in shell cost 02900 DIVISION 2 LANDSCAPING

$0.00

03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE Included in shell cost 03300 DIVISION 3 CONCRETE

$0.00

FLAT

121

$600.00

$0.00 $0.00

0 2 264

lf ea lf

FLAT FLAT FLAT

121 121 121

0 242 31944

$4.00 $100.00 $2.50

$0.00 $24,200.00 $79,860.00

204 11 6 3 0

lf lf lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

121 121 121 121 121

24684 1331 726 363 0

$2.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $1,500.00

$61,710.00 $10,648.00 $5,808.00 $2,904.00 $0.00 $185,130.00

06410 custom casework

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

55 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

QTY UOM 1

UOM ea

AREA FLAT

ITEM Cabinet package: kitchen & bathroom installed Plastic Laminate counter tops & back splash Kitchens Plastic Laminate counter tops & back splash at baths

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

800 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

121

$/UNIT $3,500.00

TOTAL $ $423,500.00

FLAT

121

4235

$25.00

$105,875.00

FLAT

121

1452

$25.00

$36,300.00

06410 custom casework

$565,675.00

06000 DIVISION 6 WOOD &PLASTICS

$750,805.00

07000 DIVISION 7 ROOFING & WATERPROOFING 07100 Waterproofing Shower pan 07100 Waterproofing 07200 Insulation Interior and exterior wall insulation Ceiling insulation 07200 Insulation

FLAT

121

$300.00

$0.00 $0.00

2376 800

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

121 121

287496 96800

$0.40 $0.65

$114,998.40 $62,920.00 $177,918.40

07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim 07425: Polystyrene Foam Trim

$0.00 $0.00

07500 Roofing. Included in shell cost 07500 Roofing.

$0.00 $0.00

07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim Included in shell cost 07600 Sheet Metal Flashing & Trim

$0.00 $0.00

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

56 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

800

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

FLAT

121

07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping Allow. Caulking & sealants fire stopping 07800 Expansion Joints & Firestopping

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL

121

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

$450.00

$54,450.00 $54,450.00

$232,368.40

1 0 5 0 0 0 0

ea ea ea ea ea ea ea

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

121 121 121 121 121 121 121

121 0 605 0 0 0 0

$750.00 $650.00 $300.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00

08360 Sectional Overhead Doors NIC 08360 Sectional Overhead Doors 08810 Glass 1/4" Glass shower enclosure w/ chrome Mirror 1/4" polished w/clips 08810 Glass 0800 DIVISION 8 WINDOWS & DOORS

$90,750.00 $0.00 $181,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $272,250.00

$0.00

0 24

ea sf

FLAT FLAT

121 121

0 2904

$500.00 $10.00

$0.00 $29,040.00 $29,040.00 $301,290.00

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Board - Level 3 Finish

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

57 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

800

ITEM

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

TOTAL $

Gypsum board to interior of exterior walls - 1 layer

193

FLAT

121

23293

$3.00

$69,877.50

263

FLAT

121

31763

$3.00

$95,287.50

578 508 800 200 80

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

121 121 121 121 121

69878 61408 96800 24200 9680

$4.25 $3.00 $3.25 $6.50 $4.00

$296,979.38 $184,222.50 $314,600.00 $157,300.00 $38,720.00 $1,156,986.88

$0.00

FLAT

121

$300.00

$0.00

0 0 0 0 0

sf sf sf sf sf

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

121 121 121 121 121

0 0 0 0 0

$8.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FLAT

121

$15.00

$0.00 $0.00

FLAT

121

6050

$5.00

$30,250.00

09560 Wood Strip Flooring Wood flooring at Kitchen & dining 09560 Wood Strip Flooring 09650 Resilient Flooring Vinyl at Kitchen

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

58 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

ITEM

QTY UOM 90 12 12

UOM sf sf lf

AREA FLAT FLAT FLAT

FLAT

Vinyl at Bathrooms Vinyl at Laundry Rubber Base 09650 Resilient Flooring

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

800 AREA QTY

UOM TOTAL

121 121 121

10890 1452 1452

$/UNIT $5.00 $5.00 $1.50

TOTAL $ $54,450.00 $7,260.00 $2,178.00 $94,138.00

121

8712

$20.00

$174,240.00

FLAT

121

$2.50

$0.00 $0.00

2918 6 0 264 0 0

sf ea ea lf lf ls

FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT

121 121 121 121 121 121

353018 726 0 31944 0 0

$0.75 $75.00 $80.00 $0.50 $0.50 $200.00

$264,763.13 $54,450.00 $0.00 $15,972.00 $0.00 $0.00 $335,185.13

09000 DIVISION 9 FINISHES 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 10820 Bath Accessories Allow for bath accessories 10820 Bath Accessories

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

$1,760,550.00

FLAT

121

242

$175.00

$42,350.00 $42,350.00

59 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

800

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

ls ea

FLAT FLAT

121 121

ITEM 10000 DIVISION 10 SPECIALTIES 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT 11452 Residential Appliances Appliance Package Allowance - Installed

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

UOM TOTAL

121 0

$/UNIT

TOTAL $ $42,350.00

$3,500.00 $675.00

$423,500.00 $0.00

11452 Residential Appliances 11000 DIVISION 11 EQUIPMENT

$423,500.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

Allow for gas fireplace

FLAT

121

$4,000.00

12000 DIVISION 12 FURNISHINGS

$0.00 $0.00

800 8 800

FLAT

121

96800

fixt.

FLAT

121

968

FLAT

121

96800

$2.75

$266,200.00

$2,800.00 $2,710,400.00 $10.00

$968,000.00 $3,944,600.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

60 of 61

Johnstone Moyer, Inc.

Project Name

Unit Type

Balboa Reservoir

SH Suite

2/1

121

800

QTY UOM

UOM

AREA

AREA QTY

sf sf

FLAT FLAT

121 121

ITEM 16070 Electrical Residential Building electrical system (Power & lighting) Building tele/data system 16070 Electrical Residential

Bed/Bath # of units SF of unit

800 800

UOM TOTAL

$/UNIT

96800 96800

TOTAL $

$16.00 $1,548,800.00 $2.00 $193,600.00 $1,742,400.00

16000 DIVISION 16 ELECTRICAL

$1,742,400.00

Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 11 Div 12 Div 13 Div 14 Div 15 Div 16 Total Direct Construction Costs

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $750,805.00 $232,368.40 $301,290.00 $1,760,550.00 $42,350.00 $423,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,944,600.00 $1,742,400.00 $9,197,863.40

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800 96800

$0 $0 $0 $0 $8 $2 $3 $18 $0 $4 $0 $0 $0 $41 $18

96800

$95 $76,015.40

Golden Shovel Exercise 4-20-12 - SH Suite - 800 SF

/sf /unit

61 of 61

Re: Balboa Park Reservoir - Steve introduction

Page 1 of 4

Re: Balboa Park Reservoir - Steve introduction Corky Silva [csilva@barryswensonbuilder.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 5:10 PM To:

Steve O'Connell

Cc:

Frederick Bayles; abarger@barryswensonbuilder.com

Steve, Here are our rough conceptual budget costs for the two apartment buildings including podium garage, in todays costs, so you will need to include escalation factors. For your use, we planned 2 levels of garage and 4 levels of wood framing. Multi Family: NSF = $220/nsf GSF = $170/gsf $190,000 per unit includes onsite and offsite work, podium garage not included is the land development costs, such as offsite improvements for water, gravity systems, PG&E, making pads, critical site specific imrpovements Student Housing: NSF = $247/nsf GSF = $199/gsf $149,000 per unit Same inclusions and exclusions as above. Now this was with making some assumptions. If needed, we can review next week a bit and with more information might be able to harden these numbers a bit. Please let me know what else we can do to help. Thank You On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Steve O'Connell <steve_oconnell@mba.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Here is a little summary that I put together to help summarize our product types, unit mixes and unit sizes. The main summary tab is called "Hard Cost Summary", please let me know if there is anything that we can do to help. Thanks, Steve

Steve O'Connell - LEED速 AP Berkeley MBA - Class of 2012

415.720.0708 steve_oconnell@mba.berkeley.edu

From: Corky Silva [csilva@barryswensonbuilder.com]

F. SUSTAINABILITY

LEED v3 NC

Prepared by Megan White

2/8/2011

LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovation

Westwood Terrace Student Housing Portion

Project Checklist 22 Y

4 N

Sustainable Sites

Y 1 5

Credit 1 Credit 2

1 6 1 3 2

Credit 3 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4

1 1 1 1 1 1

Materials and Resources, Continued Y

Prereq 1

Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1 Credit 7.2

Possible Points: 26

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Selection Development Density and Community Connectivity Brownfield Redevelopment Alternative Transportation—Public Transportation Access Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat Site Development—Maximize Open Space Stormwater Design—Quantity Control Stormwater Design—Quality Control Heat Island Effect—Non-roof Heat Island Effect—Roof Light Pollution Reduction

Credit 8

Water Efficiency

1 5 1 6 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 10

2 2

Credit 4 Credit 5

Credit 7

Indoor Environmental Quality

Y Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4

1 Y 2

Prereq 1

2 2

4 7 Y Y Y 3 2

Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3

Energy and Atmosphere Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Prereq 3

13 5

Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3

Credit 4

3 2

Water Use Reduction—20% Reduction Water Efficient Landscaping Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction

Credit 5 Credit 6

2 to 4 2 2 to 4

Possible Points: 35

Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Optimize Energy Performance On-Site Renewable Energy Enhanced Commissioning Enhanced Refrigerant Management Measurement and Verification Green Power

1 to 19 1 to 7 2 2 3 2

Materials and Resources Prereq 1

3 1 2

Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 2

Credit 3

Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1

Credit 7.2

1 1

Credit 8.1 Credit 8.2

1 1 1 1

Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4

Storage and Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof Building Reuse—Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements Construction Waste Management Materials Reuse

1 1 1 to 3 1 1 to 2 1 to 2

Credit 1.5 Credit 2

Possible Points: 14

Credit 1.2

61 10 39

Possible Points: 15

Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan—During Construction Construction IAQ Management Plan—Before Occupancy Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives and Sealants Low-Emitting Materials—Paints and Coatings Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring Systems Low-Emitting Materials—Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems—Lighting Controllability of Systems—Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort—Design Thermal Comfort—Verification Daylight and Views—Daylight Daylight and Views—Views

Innovation in Design: E.P. for Development Density Innovation in Design: Green Cleaning Innovation in Design: Integrated Pest Control Innovation in Design: Green Public Education Innovation in Design:CarSharing LEED Accredited Professional

Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4

Regional Regional Regional Regional

Priority: Priority: Priority: Priority:

1 1 1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 4

WEc3 (40%) IEQc8.1 EAc2 (1%) SSc5.2, WEc2, MRc1.1

Total Certified 40 to 49 points

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 6

Regional Priority Credits Credit 1.1

1 1

1 to 2 1 to 2 1 1

Innovation and Design Process Credit 1.1

2 6

Credit 5

1 1 1

Credit 6

Recycled Content Regional Materials Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood

1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 110 Silver 50 to 59 points

Gold 60 to 79 points

Platinum 80 to 110

LEED v3 NC

Prepared by Megan White

2/8/2011

LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovation

Westwood Terrace Multifamily Portion

Project Checklist 22 Y

4 N

Sustainable Sites

Y 1 5

Credit 1 Credit 2

1 6 1 3 2

Credit 3 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4

1 1 1 1 1 1

Materials and Resources, Continued Y

Prereq 1

Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1 Credit 7.2

Possible Points: 26

Credit 8

Water Efficiency

1 5 1 6 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 10

2 2

Credit 4 Credit 5

Credit 7

Indoor Environmental Quality

Y Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4

1 Y 2

Prereq 1

2 2

4 7 Y Y Y 3 2

Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3

Energy and Atmosphere Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Prereq 3

13 5

Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3

Credit 4

3 2

Water Use Reduction—20% Reduction Water Efficient Landscaping Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction

Credit 5 Credit 6

2 to 4 2 2 to 4

Possible Points: 35

1 to 19 1 to 7 2 2 3 2

Materials and Resources Prereq 1

3 1 2

Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 2

Credit 3

Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1

Credit 7.2

1 1

Credit 8.1 Credit 8.2

1 1 1 1

Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4

1 1 1 to 3 1 1 to 2 1 to 2

Credit 1.5 Credit 2

Possible Points: 14

Credit 1.2

61 10 39

Possible Points: 15

Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4

Regional Regional Regional Regional

Priority: Priority: Priority: Priority:

1 1 1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 4

WEc3 (40%) IEQc8.1 EAc2 (1%) SSc5.2, WEc2, MRc1.1

Total Certified 40 to 49 points

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 6

Regional Priority Credits Credit 1.1

1 1

1 to 2 1 to 2 1 1

Innovation and Design Process Credit 1.1

2 6

Credit 5

1 1 1

Credit 6

Recycled Content Regional Materials Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood

1 1 1 1

Possible Points: 110 Silver 50 to 59 points

Gold 60 to 79 points

Platinum 80 to 110

GOLDEN SHOVEL 2012 Development Proposal IMPORTANT NOTICE This document contains proprietary information regarding the business and operations of Energy Producing Retail Realty, LLC (“EPR2,” or the “Company”). By acceptance of this document you agree that the information contained herein is confidential. This document does not constitute an offer or invitation to subscribe for or purchase any shares or other securities in, or any business or assets of, any entity. The information contained herein has been prepared for the purpose of providing interested parties with general information to assist them in their evaluation of the Company. By reading this information, the reader agrees that such information shall be used only for the purpose of considering a transaction with the Company and shall not be used or relied upon for any other purpose. Nothing contained in this document is, or shall be, relied upon as a promise or representation as to the past or future performance of the Company. Estimates and projections for the Company involve significant subjective judgments and analysis and, accordingly, no representation can be made as to their attainability. The Company hereby excludes any liability to any person in consequences of his purported reliance upon information contained herein or omitted herefrom (whether express or implied) or otherwise furnished in connection herewith. In furnishing this information, the Company does not undertake any obligation to provide the recipient with access to additional information. Any requests for information in connection with this document should be addressed directly to the Company. This document is provided on the basis that it is kept CONFIDENTIAL and its circulation and use are RESTRICTED. It should not be copied or sent to any other person without the express written permission of Chris Pawlik.

Table of Contents I.

Introduction

II.

Property Overview

III.

Business Plan Analysis

IV.

Development Process

Company Overview

INTRODUCTION

Overview •

Energy-Producing Retail Realty (“EPR2”) is pleased to present its thoughts regarding on-site renewable energy generation potential for the Golden Shovel 2012 development project at the

Balboa Reservoir in San Francisco, CA (the “Property”) to the UC Berkeley – Haas team (“Berkeley-Haas” or the “Team”) •

EPR2 has developed a proprietary business method whereby property owners are able to participate in the on-site generation of renewable energy while effectively mitigating many

prohibitive concerns by partnering with EPR2 •

Based on EPR2’s preliminary analysis, it is estimated that the Property will support a gridconnected solar array covering approximately 165,000 square feet of rooftop, generating an estimated 2,207,626 kWh of electricity per year  The Team is anticipated to have the opportunity to: -

Realize a net increase in annual operating income of between $10,000 and $30,000 in Year 1;

Offer housing units with on-site, renewable energy; and,

discounted operating expenses. 3

Solar Decision Tree A property owner has multiple financing options with various risk-return tradeoffs Commercial Owner Interested In Solar

Yes

Tax Appetite?

EPR

Creditworthy?

Yes Yes Will Accept Performance Risk?

Yes Willing to Fund Up-Front Capital Costs?

Willing to enter into long-term contract

Creditworthy?

Yes

Operating Lease

Yes

Willing to manage non-core business function?

Yes

No Large Project?

Yes

No Willing to manage non-core business function?

Yes

Willing to enter into long-term contract

Yes

Balance Sheet

No Yes

Willing to enter into long-term contract

Yes

Capital Lease

No Willing to enter into long-term contract

Yes

PPA

Current Market Inefficiencies EPR2’s business method seeks to address renewable energy market inefficiencies and the systems of misaligned incentives that currently exist •

Up-front capital for a non-core business function is limited  Owners and tenants disagree on which party should invest up-front capital

 Financing alternatives for such an investment are limited for most owners, and nearly all tenants •

The rapid pace in improvement of renewable energy technologies create a challenge for risk-averse real estate owners  Owners are currently more inclined to defer any significant capital investment, opting instead to wait for costs to continue to decline  Uncertainty of energy production limits financial feasibility

Business Method Summary Most properties have underutilized space available for on-site, renewable energy generation, which is known as “energy-producing retail” space (“EPR”)

•

Real estate owners can convey EPR rights to EPR2, along with an easement to allow for construction and access

•

In return, EPR2 develops a renewable energy system, bears production and installation risk, and monitors operations and maintenance

• EPR is a real estate asset class that combines precedents set by cell towers, billboards, mineral rights, and mobile homes

Real estate owners are granted priority access to purchase renewable energy produced on-site at a discount to utility

retail pricing 6

PROPERTY OVERVIEW

Property Overview Balboa Reservoir’s location in a high-density urban community with high occupancy rates and as part of a high-visibility, ‘green’ redevelopment project represent ideal characteristics for the development of energy-producing retail Address: Site:

Balboa Reservoir San Francisco, CA 94112

Building Features • Site:

762,300 sf 17.5 acres

17.5 acres

Development Proposal: Mixed use, single and multi family dwellings; limited commercial

• Buildings: 4 Multi-family, market rate 4 Multi-family, student oriented 34 Townhome • Units:

__ Multi-family, market rate __ Multi-family, student oriented __ Townhome

• Features & Amenities: •[Parking] •“Green” Buildings/[LEED Certified] •Near public transportation •… 8

EPR â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Solar Potential 60% of the Propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rooftops have been identified for the proposed EPR development with solar technology

Existing EPR Potential EPR2 estimates that the Property has the potential to support a solar array totaling approximately 165,000 square feet

â&#x20AC;˘

ď&#x192;&#x2DC; Utilizing current technology, such a building area could support a 1,650 kilowatt array generating approximately 2,207,626 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year

EPR Potential by Month 250,000

212,513

228,353

227,378

214,407

209,235

209,780

kWh per Month

200,000 150,000

193,628

174,271

144,488

143,658

123,758

126,158

100,000 50,000 0 J

EPR Economic Benefit EPR development provides access to renewable electricity, generated on-site, at a discount to local utility retail electricity pricing $0.32 Retail - Renewable $0.30

Retail EPR2

PRICE PER KWH

$0.28

$0.26

$0.24

$0.22

$0.20

$0.18 1

YEAR

EPR Value Proposition EPR provides multiple financial benefits by aligning the interests of property-level stakeholders, including property owners, tenants, and investors Optimize existing real estate by making use of under-utilized space •

Property owners obtain an immediate increase in cash flow and property value, without investing any capital

Reduce operating expenses with an estimated 15% discount to retail-renewable electricity prices •

Tenants gain access to renewable electricity at a discount to the local utility’s retail pricing

Provide ‘core’ real estate and renewable energy returns

•

Project-level investors receive a stable financial return linked to local electricity prices 12

BUSINESS PLAN ANALYSIS

Triple Bottom Line Benefits Updating businesses to be more sustainable provides triple bottom line benefits, improving environmental performance, increasing social goods and providing distinct financial gains

Environmental

Social

• Renewable energy generation

• Local jobs – direct/indirect

• Transmission efficiency

• Municipal support

• Improved carbon footprint

• Demand for STEM professionals

Financial • Increased revenue • Decreased expenses • Improved value 14

On-Site Energy Alternatives EPR2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s partnership proposal provides multiple advantages over other, more traditional on-site energy alternatives

EPR2 Partnership Benefits Decreased Energy Expenses and/or Potential Current Income Component

Separation of Technology Costs & Risks

•

Partnership is flexibly structured to provide building owners with a combination of discounted utility prices and EPR royalties

•

All EPR development will be capitalized by EPR2 , allowing the owner to allocate funds to other capital improvement projects

•

Variable structure encourages development and continued improvement of best-in-class technology, with all expenses borne by EPR2

•

Technology risk associated with new technology will be bifurcated through the process of EPR development

•

Operations and maintenance of on-site EPR will be managed and financed by EPR2

Potential Tax and Other GovernmentProvided Financial Incentives

“Green” Value Creation •

•

Increased NOI, resulting from decreasing operating expenses and/or EPR royalties, directly increases property value

•

Federal Grant

•

Investment Tax Credit

On-site renewable energy generation enhances leasing, financing and disposition efforts

•

Accelerated and/or Bonus Depreciation

•

Renewable Energy Credits

•

Note: All pro forma financial information provided herein excludes the potential aforementioned incentives due to the uncertain nature of their availability 16

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Development Process Underwriting

Development

Determine Viability of EPR Development

EPR Development & Construction

• Real Estate Due Diligence  Identify EPR space  Perform logistical and structural assessment • Energy Demand-toCapacity Analysis  Review historical energy usage and costs  Analyze tenant utility use characteristics and lease terms  Determine type and size of EPR system • Financial Analysis  10-year pro forma  Debt structure and costs  Government-issued incentives

• System Identification  Solar  Wind  Fuel cell  Geothermal  Other • System Engineering  Site development  Electrical integration  Logistical O&M plan • System Installation  Sub-contractor RFP  Capital, labor and equipment appropriation  Project management

Operations & Maintenance

EPR Optimization

Manage O&M of EPR Development on a Day-to-Day Basis

Identify Opportunities to Increase EPR Development Returns

• Monitor EPR energy production • Perform routine maintenance • Carry out repairs (as appropriate) • Continued provision of electricity at a discount to local utility rates and/or deliverance of EPR royalties

• Increase Energy Generation Capacity  Enhance existing EPR  Develop additional EPR space on-site  Upgrade EPR systems • Identify ancillary revenue opportunities  Government grants and subsidies  Accelerated depreciation and tax credits  Renewable Energy Credits

Estimated Project Timeline

Contract Negotiation & Prelim. Due Diligence

Pre-Construction Project Development

Weeks 1-3

• • •

Review owner-provided utility statements, building schematics, etc. Complete preliminary system sizing and financial model Negotiate and execute Participation Agreement and PSA

Weeks 3-6

• • • • •

Construction

Ongoing Operations & Maintenance

Weeks 6-8

• •

On-site construction expedited to minimize interference with normal business operations Heavy on-site construction generally limited to one week

Third-party report review RFP for equipment, materials and construction Permit and regulatory approvals Construction and operating budget System selection

Weeks 8-∞

• • • •

Contract renewal Performance evaluation (Daily) O&M Technology upgrade review

APPENDIX

Building Specs (MS Excel doc) - #s

13 11 20 15 12 21 18 16 14 25 23 19 32 28 26 24 22 27 30 35 33 31 29 38 34 4 39 36 3

37 40 41 42

2 1 1a

8 6 5

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

***FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES ONLY*** Webcor Builders Sustainability Department 207 King Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94107 Christopher Brown Reservoir Bear Advisors UC Berkeley Haas RE: Review of UC Berkeley’s Golden Shovel Development Proposal Chris, The Webcor Sustainability Group has reviewed the LEED‐Gold checklist that you’ve assembled for both the multi‐family and student housing portions of your site and we believe that with proper oversight, you’ve outlined a sustainability plan that can be achieved at low or minimal additional construction cost. This is based on our experience building more than 10 million square feet of LEED certified space included the UCSD Residential Housing Project in San Diego, The residence at W Hotel‐Hollywood, The Century Residential Tower in Century City, and the Avalon Mission Bay Projects in San Francisco which have all received LEED Certification. Webcor are also currently seeking certification on 6 other residential projects. Sincerely, Phil Williams VP of Sustainability & Technical Systems LEED AP, P.E.

Megan White Sustainability Manager LEED AP (BD+C, ID+C)

9 51 M ari ne r s I sl a n d Bo ul ev ar d, 7 t h Fl oor, San M ateo , CA 94404 San Mateo

•

San Francisco

•

Hayward

•

• T 65 0 .34 9 .27 27 Los Angeles

• F 65 0 .52 4 .739 9 •

•

San Diego

www.w ebcor. com •

Anaheim

April 16, 2012 Christopher Brown Reservoir Bear Advisors UC Berkeley Haas 415.652.0294

***FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES ONLY*** RE: Review of UC Berkeley’s Golden Shovel Development Proposal Dear Chris: I’ve reviewed the infrastructure cost detail that the UC Berkeley Haas team has provided for the Balboa Reservoir Site and I believe it represents an accurate initial estimate for your site and development program. This is based on my experience working on largescale residential projects throughout the Bay Area including my current work on Treasure Island Redevelopment and Hunters Point Phase 2 – Candlestick Point Redevelopment. Sincerely, BKF Engineers

Todd Adair, P.E. Principal / Vice President

255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 www.bkf.com

***FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES ONLY*** April 23, 2012

Frederick Bayles Reservoir Bear Advisors UC Berkeley Haas 206-953-3733 RE: Review of UC Berkeley’s Golden Shovel Development Proposal

Fred, I’ve reviewed the pre-development cost detail that the UC Berkeley Haas team has provided for the Balboa Reservoir Site and I believe it represents an accurate initial estimate for the team’s site and development program. This is based on my experience with entitlements of large-scale projects throughout the Bay Area including a mixed-use residential project in San Francisco currently in pre-development.

Sincerely,

Steve Shanks, PE Vice President, SKS Investments

SKS Investments 601 California St, Suite 1310 San Francisco, CA 94610 415-421-8200

April 18th, 2012 Frederick Bayles Reservoir Bear Advisors UC Berkeley Haas 206-953-3733 Re:

Balboa Reservoir Site (“Project”)

Dear Fredrick, This letter would serve as an outline of proposed terms and conditions under which Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank” or “Lender”) would consider a loan request on the above captioned project. I’ve reviewed the proposal that the UC Berkeley Haas team has provided for the Balboa Reservoir Site and provided the construction loan proposal (Exhibit 1) for the team’s site and development program. This quote is based on the current capital markets and my experience working on large-scale projects throughout the Bay Area including over $200,000,000 in Bay Area MultiFamily financing. BORROWER:

Bank of America would require that the Borrower hold the asset in a single asset entity, organized in a manner acceptable to the Bank in its sole discretion.

LOAN AMOUNT:

Loan Amount would be sized based on the lesser of the following terms and conditions: • Maximum Loan to Value (“LTV”) ratio of 65% based on the "As Stabilized" value of the Project as contained in the appraisal engaged by Bank, and complying with all regulatory requirements (“Appraisal”); • Maximum Loan to Cost (“LTC”) of 65% based on the purchase price and qualified closing costs. • Maximum 9.09% Debt Yield on stabilized NOI (as established in an appraisal)

SECONDARY DEBT

Will not be permitted.

PURPOSE:

Construction financing.

COLLATERAL:

This loan would be secured by • First deed of trust on the Project, assignment of rents on leases, fixture filing on Project and UCC filings; • An assignment of all plans, contracts, operating agreements, and permit rights relating to the Project; • Any other customary items of security for a loan of this type, all in form and content acceptable to Bank.

ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY:

Standard Bank loan documents would include an Unsecured Indemnity Agreement to be signed by Borrower and Guarantors, covering environmental and certain other risks.

RECOURSE:

100% principal and 100% interest and carry guaranty, to decrease to 50% principal guaranty with a certificate of occupancy, with a further decrease to 25% principal recourse once the project reaches a 7.5% debt yield, with the loan converting to nonrecourse at a 9.09% DY. Recourse would be to a substantial sponsor with significant new worth and liquidity.

1 of 4

INTEREST RATE:

LIBOR Daily Floating Rate + 2.50%; To the extent that LIBOR Borrowings are unavailable, interest would be payable at the Bank's Prime Rate as publicly announced plus 1.50%.

SYNDICATION

Should the loan be syndicated, the pricing above, along with the other terms within this term sheet would be subject to “market flex language” based on the credit provisions required by the other participating lenders.

REPAYMENT:

48 months of interest only

LOAN TERM:

Forty-eight (48) months.

LOAN FEE:

1.00% of Loan Amount to be paid at loan closing.

EXTENSION OPTIONS:

Two, 12 month extension options.

EXTENSION CONDITONS:

The Borrower would have the option to extend the initial Loan Term for two, 12-month periods based upon the following criteria: • • • • • • • • •

No event of default; No material adverse change to Borrower or Guarantors financial condition; Borrower to be in full compliance with all loan covenants; Extension appraisal to be ordered at Bank discretion and paid for by Borrower; Payment of a 25 basis point extension fee for each extension. Extension fees are calculated on the then outstanding Loan amount; During the extension period(s), the INTEREST RATE would remain the same as the initial term; Property would achieve a debt yield of 9.09% Property would adhere to a 65% “as-is” LTV; Straight line amortization of 1.5% of the principal balance each year, paid monthly;

Second Extension: Same qualification as above. TOWNHOMES

The Bank understands that there would be for sale townhomes associated with the project. The Bank would require that the Sponsor pay down the minimum of the following: (1) 20% quarterly curtailments of the allocated total cost of the project (see below), or (2) 75% of the net proceeds from the sale of each townhome to be used to pay down the loan. 20% quarterly curtailments would commence 6 months after receiving the certificate of occupancy was received on the townhomes.

LOAN DOCUMENTS:

The Bank’s standard loan documents would be required and would include, without limitation, other terms, conditions, covenants, representations, warranties, disbursement procedures, accelerating transfer provisions and events of default which are not specifically described in these summary terms and conditions.

INDEMNIFICATION:

Borrower and Guarantors would indemnify the Bank, and any officer, employee, agent, attorney or controlling person thereof, or any holding company thereof, from

2 of 4

and against all losses, liability, claims, damages or expenses relating to the loan, including but not limited to, environmental indemnification, reasonable attorney’s fees and settlement costs (but excluding losses attributable to Bank’s gross negligence, willful misconduct and/or breach of its obligations). This indemnification would survive and continue for the benefit of the Bank’s commitment for the loan, notwithstanding any failure of the loan to close or any termination of the loan or payment in full of the obligations there under. FEES AND EXPENSES:

Borrower would be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the loan, including but not limited to, Bank’s attorney fees, inspecting architect’s fees, appraisal fees, environmental consultant fees, survey fees, title insurance premiums, etc. , whether or not the loan closes.

CONDITIONS:

Credit approval of the proposed loan would be subject to the Bank's further evaluation of Borrower's and Guarantors’ financial information, credit history, cash flow and market conditions affecting the collateral value and repayment of the proposed credit. The following is a partial, non-exhaustive list of conditions that would have to be met during the underwriting process and/or prior to loan closing: a) Bank commissioned MAI appraisal in form and content reasonably satisfactory to Bank; b) Bank review and acceptance of (a) management agreements, (b) insurance requirements; and (c) any other agreements necessary to underwrite the loan prior to closing; c) Phase I environmental assessment and any additional environmental reports, as appropriate, in form and content acceptable to Bank, and Bank, in its sole discretion, must conclude that no environmental issues exist that would impact Bank’s ability to finance the Project; d) Receipt, review and acceptance of geotechnical reports, seismic reports, surveys, and plans & specifications, if applicable; e) Borrower shall have delivered evidence satisfactory to Bank that the Project has received and is in compliance with all governmental permits, licenses and consents necessary for the project; f) Entity documents for Borrower and Guarantors would be provided to Bank and would be subject to Bank’s review and approval; g) There would have been no material adverse change in Borrower’s or Guarantors’ business condition (financial or otherwise), operations, properties or prospects prior to closing of the loan. h) Lender has relied upon information submitted by the Borrower to document this quote. Should the information received during the underwriting of this loan differ materially differ, there could be a negative impact to the loan structure or pricing.

This term sheet is confidential and except for disclosure hereof on a confidential basis to your accountants, attorneys and other professional advisors retained by you in connection with the proposed term loan or as otherwise required by

3 of 4

law, may not be disclosed in whole or in part to any person or entity without our prior written consent. The Lender hereby notifies you that pursuant to the requirements of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title III of Pub. L. 107-56 (signed into law October 26, 2001) (the “Act”), it is required to obtain, verify and record information that identifies you, which information includes your name and address and other information that would allow the Lender to identify you in accordance with the Act. Within five (5) days of opening an account with the Lender, the Borrower would have delivered to the Lender all due diligence materials necessary and relevant to verifying the Borrower’s identity and background information, as deemed necessary by the Lender in its sole and absolute discretion. Please understand that this letter does not represent an offer or commitment by the Bank for the proposed financing, nor does it define all the terms and conditions of a loan commitment, but is a framework upon which a loan request may be submitted. Issuance of a commitment by the Bank is subject to, among other things, the completion of the foregoing items, and approval of your loan request under the Bank’s internal approval process. The Bank may decline to approve your loan request. Upon your response to this letter and after you provide any additional information which may be necessary, I would proceed with the necessary due diligence to submit your loan request. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,

Michael J Shin Commercial Real Estate Banking Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of America, N.A. 555 California Street, Floor 6 San Francisco, CA 94104 O: 415.913.3335 F: 415.913.3262 Acknowledged by and agreed to by:

By: Its:

4 of 4