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