golden gate village revitalization update
TRANSCRIPT
Golden Gate Village
Revitalization UpdateM a r i n H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y
2
Purpose of Briefing
▪ Overview of GGV
▪ Review Businesses Case
▪ Guiding Principles
▪ Process to Develop Plan
▪ Developer RFQ
▪ Current Project Budget & Scope
▪ Resident Benefits and Protections
▪ Next Steps
3
Overview of GGV
▪ 300 Units, built in 1960s
▪ Approx. 642 residents.
▪ Need for senior focused housing ▪ Approx. 100 head of households age 62+over
▪ Average household size 2.3 persons
▪ GGV Designated Historic District in 2017
4
Physical Needs Assessment 2020 (PNA)
▪ Approximately $90m needed
▪ Substantial renovations needed to modernize
and ensure new full 55-year life expectancy
▪ GGV 1960s construction
▪ Over 50 years old
▪ 28 buildings
▪ HUD best practice: PNA every 5 years
▪ Scope:
▪ Systems
▪ Building Envelope
▪ Site Conditions
▪ Seismic
Current
HUD Funding:
$954 per unit operations
$800,000 per year capital
(across 500
public housing units)
5
Guiding Principles
1. Protecting existing GGV residents
2. Restoring economic sustainability
3. Ensuring resident participation throughout
planning/revitalization process
4. Preserving historic Marinship heritage
5. Promoting high quality open space
6. Collaborate with Marin County community
to expand economic development and job
training/education opportunities for GGV
residents.
6
County-MHA Partnership
✓ Preserve and create long-term
sustainable and affordable
housing
✓ Short-term investment vs
long-term sustainability
7
Business Case for Long-Term
Sustainable & Affordable Housing
HUD Section 18: funding* per unit improves, but no rent increase.
Unit Type HUD Funding Today Per unit subsidy
Studio $954 $2,115
1 bedroom $2,631
2 bedroom $3,198
3 bedroom $4,010
4 bedroom $4,622
*2020 Housing Choice Voucher Payment Standards
8
Background
▪ Community Working Group
▪ Guiding Principles
▪ Feasibility Analysis
▪ Residents 1st
▪ Select Development Partner
Update on Revitalization Planning
Revitalization
Concept Planning
▪ Listening Sessions
▪ Resident Survey
▪ Existing Resident Population
▪ Revitalization Options
▪ Preferred Concept
▪ Planning & Environmental Review
9
Golden Gate Village Revitalization
Community Working Group
▪ Resident driven planning process goes
back to 2009 and again in 2015
▪ Formation of the community
stakeholder Community Working
Group
▪ Adopted 2009 community goals called
the “Guiding Principles”
▪ Met during 2015 with GGV residents
and community stakeholders
10
Golden Gate Village Revitalization
Feasibility Analysis
▪ In 2017 that looked at historical
preservation vs mixed income
▪ Recommended:
▪ Historical preservation combined
with limited number of new units
▪ Prevent displacement
▪ New community space for services
▪ Partner with qualified developer
11
Development Concept
▪ Keeps the community needs at the
center of our planning
▪ New buildings prevent displacement
▪ Phase deep green renovations to
move residents back into
rehabilitated units
▪ Seek funding for ownership
opportunities for GGV residents
▪ Provide new/additional community
space, resident services, and existing
onsite organizations serving GGV
▪ Renovate open space and landscape
▪ Provides critically needed affordable
housing
▪ Allows seniors in GGV to age in place
12
Developer
Leases Land from MHA. Responsible for the day-to-day tasks required to
implement stages of the project.
DETERMINE
PROJECT
FEASIBILITY
PRE-DEVELOPMENT:
BUDGET REFINEMENT,
SECURING FUNDS, TESTING
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
STABILIZATION:
PROPERTY MEETS ALL IDENTIFIED
BENCHMARKS FOR OPERATIONS
CONSTRUCTION:
BUDGET & SCHEDULE MONITORING
DUE DILIGENCE & CLOSING
ONCE FINANCING IS SECURED
Developer Fee: Must be earned upon achieving
specific milestones of development
13
Developer’s Risks: Guarantees
Construction Completion
✓ Delivering rehabilitated units on time
and on budget
✓ Guarantees are provided by developer
Risks
✓ Equity funding reduced if units are late
✓ Financial responsibility for cost overruns
and schedule delays
Tax Credit Compliance
✓ Delivering occupied income eligible
units
✓ Ongoing (15 year)
Risks
✓ Equity funding reduced if units are not
occupied OR over income
Operating Deficit
✓ Ability to operate units within budget
✓ Responsible to fund any operating
deficits
✓ Is an on-going responsibility
Risks
✓ Operating deficits beyond reserves,
funded out of pocket
14
Development Partner
For-Profit vs. Non-Profit:
o All of the five teams that applied were
for-profit developers
• Two brought non-profit partners
• Two partnered with MHA
o For-profit partners developers partner with
local non-profits for local community
connection, help identify needs, and
access to grants and tax credits
o Marin Housing Authority is fulfilling the
non-profit role
▪ Taskforce helped write RFQ
▪ Resident Council on RFQ
Selection Panel
▪ RFQ in 2018 and selected
Michaels
15
Developer Business Proposals
MHA Role MHA Fees Cost CharingDeveloper
Developer/MHACash Flow
MichaelsCo-developer/
Managing GP
$20K/year MGMT fee; Long
term ground lease of $375K50/50
First $300K to
Michaels;
65/35 after
50/50
JSCO/
Bridge
Co-GP or Special
Partner
Ground lease - $1M +70%
of restricted rents50/50 90/10 90/10
Related/
MCCDC
Ground Lessor
onlyGround lease payment 50/50 None 50/50
MBSCo-developer /
Managing GP
$15K/year management fee;
ground lease payment based
on appraised value
100/0 +$500K
upfront per
phase
90/10
Split per
ownership
percentages
16
Michaels Partnership
▪ Recognize and promote the rich
history of the GGV community
▪ Create economic and job
opportunities for GGV residents
▪ Marin County commitment to
creating an endowment for
education, jobs and services
MICHAELS’ COMMITMENT
TO THE COMMUNITY:
Better Tomorrows: supportive services in financial
stability, educational success and health & wellness
Educational Foundation: given $8m dollars
in grants for resident higher education
17
Historic Preservation
Michaels recommends a
vision that respects and
honors the historic district
and the community’s
heritage.
Strategies:
▪ Minimize residential demolition
▪ Preserve views
▪ Make changes to areas with the least
impact
▪ Original plans guide rehab scope
18
Rehabilitation Approach
Michaels has worked across the
country to rehabilitate and
revitalize existing public housing
sites into sustainable, affordable
housing communities.
Our goal is in our rehabilitation
projects is to set up the property
for a long term, sustainable
operation.
OUR APPROACH:
Lens 1
Building systems and infrastructure
Lens 2
Sustainability, energy efficiency &
renewables
Lens 3
Fixtures and finishes
19
▪ Golden Gate Village Revitalization Concept
20
Estimated Project Budget Summary
$387M Total Development Cost (TDC)
Rehabilitation TDC $282.3M
• 8 high-rise buildings (170 units) $360K hard costs/unit
• 20 low-rise buildings (130 units) $375K hard costs/unit
• 2 low rise buildings removed (16 units or 5% of total)
New Construction TDC $104.7M
• 1 senior high rise (48 units) $400K hard costs/unit
+6,000 sq ft community center
• 1 family high rise (108 units) $500K hard costs/unit
+15,000 sq ft community center
21
Benefits for GGV Residents
✓ No involuntary displacement
✓ All GGV units renovated
✓ Affordable housing (no market rate)
✓ Expands pathways to homeownership
✓ Job training and job opportunities
✓ New community center for programs
✓ Resident endowment fund to support
education and financial sustainability/growth
22
Next Steps
1 Explore creation of resident endowment fund as part of project budget
2 Expand pathways to homeownership
3 Community meetings
4 Negotiate Predevelopment Cost Agreement
5 Ongoing project updates via Website
6 Complete CEQA/NEPA