challe nge s and o ppo r tunitie s
play

Challe nge s and o ppo r tunitie s T ar a Bar auskas, E xe c - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Affor dable housing pr oduc tion in Santa Monic a Challe nge s and o ppo r tunitie s T ar a Bar auskas, E xe c utive Dir e c tor Co mmunity Co rp o f Sa nta Mo nic a Co mmunity Co rpo ra tio n o f Sa nta Mo nic a E sta b lishe


  1. Affor dable housing pr oduc tion in Santa Monic a Challe nge s and o ppo r tunitie s T ar a Bar auskas, E xe c utive Dir e c tor Co mmunity Co rp o f Sa nta Mo nic a

  2. Co mmunity Co rpo ra tio n o f Sa nta Mo nic a  E sta b lishe d in 1982  Ove r 1,700 units o f AH in Sa nta Mo nic a , o ve r 4,000 pe o ple se rve d  Ve rtic a lly inte g ra te d-Pro pe rty Ma na g e me nt, Se rvic e s, De ve lo pme nt  Va rie ty o f pro duc t type s-ne w c o nstruc tio n, re ha b  Clo se to 6,000 pe o ple o n wa iting list

  3. Re habilitate d pr ope r tie s and ne w c onstr uc tion

  4. De ve lo ping in SM to da y- c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s Pr ope r ty ac quisition c halle nge s  Sc a rc ity, e xpe nse o f site s  Ma ny site s ha ve pe o ple living in the m, do n’ t wa nt to re lo c a te  Hig hly c o mpe titive , re q uire s sho rt time fra me s a nd c a sh o ffe rs  L a ndma rks pro c e ss c a n ta ke time a nd po se risk  Co st to a c q uire e xisting b uilding s to re ha b – a ppro x $450K -$650K pe r unit (just a c q )

  5. Pr ope r ty ac quisition c halle nge s  Sc a rc ity, e xpe nse o f site s Addr e ss L ist Pr ic e Sale Pr ic e Units L and $/ unit Sold Gra nd Vie w Blvd, W.L A $5.6M $5.7M 50 $112K Ye s L inc o ln Blvd, SM $5.8M No t so ld 36 $161K No Do wnto wn (two lo ts), $12.25M No t so ld 75 $163K No SM Mic hig a n Ave , SM $6.6M $6.62M 38 $175K Ye s 14 th Stre e t, SM $7.8M $7.8M 39 $200K Ye s 6 th Stre e t (o ne lo t), SM $6M Pe nding 30 $200K No Ve nic e lo ts $7.6M No t so ld 36 $211K No T he Arro yo $16.4M $16.4M 64 $256K Ye s

  6. De ve lo ping in SM to da y-c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s (c o nt) Pr ope r ty ac quisition oppor tunitie s  City-o wne d la nd (purc ha se o r le a se )  Ada ptive re use / re de ve lo ping site s with o the r use s  Mo re nimb le a c q uisitio n fund o r pro c e ss c o uld he lp

  7. De ve lo ping in SM to da y-c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s (Co nt) Proje c t de sig n a nd la nd use c ha lle ng e s  I nfill site s with pa rking o nsite a re e xpe nsive  Arc hite c tura l b e lls a nd whistle s a re e xpe nsive  City c o de re q uire me nts c a n a dd c o st  Building pe rmit pro c e ss is le ng thy  Zo ning in ma ny a re a s is a limita tio n; c o uld b uild mo re units with hig he r de nsity/ F AR a llo we d  Pa rking re q uire me nts drive c o st a nd re duc e numb e r o f units de ve lo pe d

  8. De ve lo ping in SM to da y-c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s (Co nt) Proje c t de sig n a nd la nd use opportunitie s  Administra tive a ppro va l is a sig nific a nt to o l in de ve lo ping AH; c o uld b e e nha nc e d furthe r  Co uld lo o k a t de nsity a nd pa rking re q uire me nts o n c o mme rc ia l c o rrido rs o r ne a r tra nsit  Co uld lo o k a t stre a mlining L a ndma rks a nd ARB pro c e ssing fo r 100% AH pro je c ts  Co uld lo o k a t le ss tra ditio na l/ mo re inno va tive ho using type s to re duc e c o sts-mo dula r, ADU e tc

  9. De ve lo ping in SM to da y-c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s (Co nt) F inanc ing c halle nge s  Pro je c ts de ve lo pe d a re g o ve rne d b y funding re g ula tio ns-AHPP (Unit size s, re nts), T CAC (de a dline s, re q uire me nts), City re q uire me nts (time line s, limite d funding )  T CAC funding is ve ry c o mpe titive , we c o mpe te with a ll L A Co unty pro je c ts; tie b re a ke r c o mpe titio n  No t ma ny o the r funding so urc e s to le ve ra g e  All funding so urc e s va lue c o st e ffic ie nc y a nd lo c a l ma tc hing re so urc e s  Co nsulta nts a nd c o ntra c to rs do n’ t g ive “disc o unt” to AH; we pa y ma rke t.  So me fe e s a re a ive d, o the rs no t (pe rmit fe e s); a ro und $15K / unit  Pre va iling wa g e a dds 15-30% c o st  Re so urc e s fo r se rvic e s funding (spe c ia l ne e ds)

  10. Pa st Pro je c ts-c o sts High Plac e E ast, Comple te d June 2014 2602 Br oadway, Comple te d Oc tobe r , 2012 Addre ss: 2401 Virg inia Ave . Addre ss: 2602 Bro a dwa y   Units: 44 Units: 33   T o ta l Co st: $19,567,593 T o ta l Co st: $23,944,782   Pric e / unit: $592,957 Pric e / unit: $544,199   Pa rking : Sub te rra ne a n Pa rking : Sub te rra ne a n   High Plac e We st, Comple te d Nove mbe r 2012 2802 Pic o, Comple te d June 2013 Addre ss: 2345 Virg inia Ave . Addre ss: 2802 Pic o Blvd.   Units: 47 Units: 33   T o ta l Co st: $20,080,701 T o ta l Co st: $23,605,039   Pric e / unit: $608,506 Pric e / unit: $502,234   Pa rking : Sub te rra ne a n Pa rking : Sub te rra ne a n  

  11. De ve lo ping in SM to da y-c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s (Co nt) F inanc ing/ de ve lopme nt oppor tunitie s  Additio na l funding re so urc e s , timing , re duc tio n o f c o st  Additio na l c o unty funding fo r se rvic e s a nd re nta l sub sidie s  Stre a mline pe rmit a nd c o nstruc tio n pro c e sse s  Co uld re vie w pre va iling wa g e re q uire me nt o r c re a te a lte rna tive

  12. De ve lo ping in SM to da y-c ha lle ng e s a nd o ppo rtunitie s (Co nt) Othe r c halle nge s and oppor tunitie s  Co mmunity do e sn’ t a lwa ys e mb ra c e AH in the ir c o mmunity; a lso issue s with de nsity, he ig ht a nd pa rking . Asso c ia te d issue s with ma rke t ra te de ve lo pme nt.  Ca n wo rk to b uild mo re suppo rte rs fo r the missio n; so me a lre a dy e xist  AHPP pro g ra m is a g re a t to o l, c o uld b e furthe r re fine d. Onsite ve rsus o ffsite o ptio ns.

  13. L I HT C funding b a sic s  T wo pro g ra ms– 9% a nd 4%  T wo ro unds a ye a r  Must ha ve AL L e ntitle me nts a nd a ppro va ls e xc e pt b uilding pe rmit to a pply (b urde n to de ve lo pe r)  Hig hly c o mpe titive -pre c isio n is c ritic a l  L ike ly o nly 1 9% pro je c ts a ye a r wo uld g e t a llo c a te d in SM

  14. 9% pro je c ts must pic k a ho using type a nd se t-a side a t a pplic a tio n Housing T ype s  L a rg e F a mily (65% g o a l)  Spe c ia l Ne e ds (25% g o a l)  SRO (typic a lly o ve rla ps)  At-Risk (typic a lly o ve rla ps)  Se nio rs (15% g o a l) (fo r 62+) Se ta side s  No npro fit (ho me le ss prio rity with c e rta in funding -must b e 50% ho me le ss)  Rura l  At-risk  Spe c ia l ne e ds/ SRO

  15. Que stio ns?

Recommend


More recommend