Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 7, 2012 6:00am-6:30am PDT

6:00 am
affordable and market rate housing, a lively boulevard with active storefronts and open space, and extensive street improvement that includes pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. it is my hope that city departments commit to doing a better job on completing this plan as originally adopted. >> thank you very much. supervisor olague, the departments are oewd and mou, correct? -- chairperson chu: >> kelly pretzer. office of workforce development. i am here to give background on the parcels and detailed information on the overall sources and uses for the project, as well as a preview of what tasks we have yet to
6:01 am
complete. for a brief overview of what i will be covering, octavia boulevard is a complex project which draws on many departments. the mayor's office of housing, and dpw, and planning. this has been divided into a conceptual part -- conceptual pockets. we will begin by looking at contracts, then what is contained in those contracts. then, we will discuss the sale of parcels. we will then extract those items which will be coming before you in the future. not long ago, the central freeway was a double decker structure. it extended across market street, headed north. the central freeway was badly damaged in the 1989 earthquake. the form of its replacements the dish reduced structure took many years and a ballot measures to decide. we will start by discussing the
6:02 am
various voter initiatives, ordinances, and contracts which have guided the form of octave the boulevard. proposition e was passed in 1988. it called for an elevated structure from mission to market, and an at-grade ground- level market from octavia. in 1999, proposition i was passed. while prop e decided the form, prop i decided the mechanism. the city would sell pieces of land and use that revenue to build what we now know as octavia boulevard. he'd give special emphasis that those pieces of land the city sold would be used presidentially, including affordable housing. it also discussed uses of the remaining funds.
6:03 am
the cooperative agreement was between the city of san francisco and the state department of transportation, and was signed in 2000. this was the contract between the government entities to implement agreements. it transferred state-owned parcels to the city. the agreement also included a number of obligations the city would undertake in exchange for ownership of these 22 parcels. these were the construction of octavia boulevard and the implementation of a traffic management plan, as well as rehabilitation of portions of van ness avenue, which were to be adopted as part of highway 101. four years after the agreement, the city was undergoing a planning process for the market action octavia area. it was important not to sell
6:04 am
parcels in a way that might undermine the community planning process. as i will elaborate, a key component of the plan that has directly informed the overall management of funds related to the boulevard is a balance between housing, concentration, and building a complete neighborhood. it sought to ensure that change not be the haphazard result of fluctuating economic trends, but tied to larger goods for the city. the plan draws on the relationships between these three ideas of housing, transportation, and building a full neighborhood to create a transit-oriented neighborhood, encourage housing. housing was a key part of the plan and directly influenced the approach to the plan. it gave guidance that the people who live in the neighborhood create the community of the place.
6:05 am
housing a diverse group of people means providing ranges of affordability and housing types in a safe and attractive setting. the development program prioritized housing as a direct result. they worked well together. after 1500 or so of for the book uses -- affordable units planned, roughly 450 are in the central freeway parcells, a full third. a development plan called for 50% of all units to be at an affordable level, another target we have exceeded. as the sale moves forward, it is helpful to remember that in many ways we are implementing the community-generated plan for the area. the final foundation document i would like to discuss is an ordinance approved by the board of supervisors in 2009.
6:06 am
it approved the sale of remaining utensils at market rates. it also required that any parcells would be subject to a declaration of economic justice. now that we have established the foundation, i would like to take a deeper dive into the obligations required by those documents. a reminder of the requirements i have already covered from the corporate agreement, which included obligations the city would undertake in exchange for ownership of those 22 parcels. those were construction of octavia boulevard and a traffic management plan, as well as a rehabilitation of portions of van ness ave. in addition, as part of the process, a group of what we call ancillary projects were prioritized, focused in areas south of market street, where the raised highway remains.
6:07 am
the streetscape improvements come at a cost of approximately $2.40 million for construction, and construction began earlier this year. in addition, it prioritized two uses on caltrans-owned parcels beneath the freeway. those include a state park and a dog-run facility, which is initiating the community design process. finally, the central freeway cac prioritized and active use in an area that had been dead in did. this area, affectionately referred to as the hub, is finalizing the plans for an open space, construction cost $1.80 million. here is a quick design. what is depicted is a farmer's market moving night use.
6:08 am
it is not -- it is designed in a manner that accommodates food trucks. here is the area in which the projects are situated. you can see the streetscape improvements, dog run, and state park structures, and the hub at the dead ended portion. in summary, the city is obligated to the construction of part of the boulevard, the rehabilitation of portions of van ness, and the ancillary projects. items in red have already been completed. you see this cost is presented as a range. we have received revised estimates from various city departments that the cost associated with this work has increased to 12 1/7 dollars million.
6:09 am
we have a revised $12.70 million estimate. the cost is between 41 and 45 million. now that we have covered how we are required to spend any funds generated, i want to walk through how we generate those funds -- mainly by selling parcels. the parcels of unlettered a through v. we have printed a map of each of the parcels for members of the committee, which will hopefully make the alphabet soup easier to follow. i have additional copies available for the public, near where the agendas are available. you can help follow along. in 2002, soon after the parcells had been transferred to the city, the city entered an agreement with the redevelopment agency. the agency purchased two parcels
6:10 am
at market rate. this is essentially an overpayment. those parcels were not yet entitled. a key tenet was the provision so that any funds left after the city fulfills its obligations would be given to the redevelopment agency to adjust the purchase price. this was a fun dimensional -- a fundamental premise. it was instrumental in the construction of aqaba boulevard. the came forward with the understanding that the purchase price would be adjusted in the future. the transfer agreement included an option to transfer an additional five parcels, should they so choose. in fact, the redevelopment agency exercised the option to purchase an additional five parcels, at a cost of $12
6:11 am
million. the total amount was $17.80 million. at this point, i would like to ask the director of the mayor's office of housing to come to the podium. >> the redevelopment agency -- i was at the agency at the time -- was presented with an opportunity to collaborate with the city family to stitch up the neighborhood. as some of the earlier slides showed, there was a community planning process that started and ended in 2008. at the same time, there was a desire to begin the construction of the replacement
6:12 am
to the central freeway. the agency purchase of the parcels really facilitated that that work could continue -- could start and be completed in a timely manner while the community was looking at the issues of overhaul neighborhood -- of overall neighborhood design, how to deal with these diagonal parcels that went through the city blocks, and how to stitch the neighborhood back together. the redevelopment agency purchase of land that was known at that point p, which was on entitled -- unentitled, greatly contributed early money to the process of rebuilding the neighborhood. i think the agency took on the
6:13 am
responsibility that was outlined by the board in terms of providing for half of the affordable units as affordable housing. we did a couple things in addition to doing the affordable housing. one of the things the agency participated with the other city departments, especially oewd, is not only the general design discussions related to planning, but also a design competition for the various parcels. again, to give a road map to how the neighborhood would want to see the community be built, the winning architect of the design competition was a young architect named amid patel. he developed this as an associate of david baker and
6:14 am
associates. we used those sorts of guidelines when we are talking about how we would develop our affordable housing, because that was in conjunction with the design goals of the neighborhood. we worked very hard with the neighborhood to ensure there was good quality design. i think the buildings that you will see reflect the interests of the neighborhood, with good quality design and affordable housing to the rebuilding of the neighborhood and added a variety of affordable housing to serve the broad scope of affordable housing. i would like to thank the opportunity -- take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in the neighborhood association for their wonderful support of the affordable housing developments.
6:15 am
before you are three of the completed projects that the redevelopment agency supported. those are the park view terraces, developed by ccdc, an award-winning development with 100 units of low-income and senior housing. the one below that is the mary helen rogers development, which is under construction today. again, another 100 units of affordable senior housing with a former lead-homeless component. the last on this page is the richardson apartments, which was recently opened. we had the fortune of having supervisor kim there for the opening. what i presume will be another award-winning building. this is another building that will be supported by the
6:16 am
department of public health through their direct access to housing program. the next slide show -- one additional product that was done, the octavia court. this was done with west by housing -- west bay housing. it is for individuals that are developmentally disabled. it comes with a wrap-around surfaces from the regional center. we have three additional parcels left to develop. we are looking for family rental housing on one parcel, transitional age youth housing on the other, and possibly ownership housing on the last one. the agency invested, in addition to the acquisition of the land,
6:17 am
which was used -- our total purchase price was about $18 million. building the boulevard and some of the related traffic improvements was $23 million. clearly, the $18 million purchase price was a great contributor to allowing the city to proceed with the boulevard. but in addition to that $18 million, the agency has invested other funds from the housing fund for the vertical development. these sums are listed in this slide. today, we have invested approximately $36 million. we have also leveraged twice that amount in terms of low income housing tax credits, section 202 programs, and other sources of funding that we brought to the neighborhood for
6:18 am
the neighborhood rebuild. so our contribution is much more than just that we acquired the property, or even more than the local funds we put into the property as our investment. we brought those additional resources to the neighborhood, and to individuals needing affordable housing. at this point, in terms of what is needed to sort of complete our role in what is a, sort of, a large collaboration of city departments, we are looking at sort of a local need of approximately $40 million to complete the affordable housing program. we have three parcels left to develop. i think that if you were to look at the market rate and the affordable parcells on the map, you will see that the affordable parcels are substantially done. if we had waited for the
6:19 am
proceeds from the market-rate parcels to build the boulevard, we would still be waiting today. the affordable housing -- i will use a very often-used phrase, a double bottom line. it will help facilitate the timely creation of the boulevard in addition to meeting the affordable housing goals of the city. at this time, i would like to turn the presentation back to kelly. >> thanks, olson. the city made a conscious decision that beyond the sale of parcels to the redevelopment agency that it would wait to sell the larger parcels until the community process successfully completed. you will see the sales that did occur prior to plan adoption, mostly focused on subdividing existing parcels into squares and rectangles, and selling the oddly-shaped remainders, mostly
6:20 am
to adjoining property owners. those sales generated $5.40 million, for a total before market octavia plan adoption of $32 million. since the plan was adopted, the city has sold five parcels for a total of $21.70 million. finally, i would like to discuss where we are in the process of, as also mentioned, stitching together this neighborhood. approximately 943 units will be constructed on these properties. of those over 900 units, 492 are estimated to be at an affordable level, a 51.2% affordability level. i would like to cover some of the temporary uses. it goes without saying that several years saw land prices at lower levels than historical found in the city. it was unintentional decision,
6:21 am
in addition to waiting for adoption of the market carpe diem plan, to delay sale of some of the larger parcels until the market recovered and the city would see a better sale price. while waiting for the market to recover, we heard from neighbors that they did not want to see vacant lots for the next five or 10 years. we pursued innovative temporary uses on some of these parcels. on parcels k and l, you will currently find proxy, which is in mixed-use retail pop up. we have a coffee roaster, ice- cream, rotating food trucks, and a beer garden. on parcels o and p, the largest, you will find the hayes valley farm. on parcels r and s, you'll find the growing home community garden. in all of these cases, we were fortunate to find partners who
6:22 am
were willing to work with us, who understood the temporary nature of these parcels, and were willing to take a risk and do something innovative for a short time, to make sure there were not a lot of empty lots dotting the neighborhood. the city sees interim revenue from leases on these parcels. parcel e is a long-term lease of the school district. parcel f is leased to the opera. that will cease shortly, because it is in the process of sale. the city does see a limited amount of revenue from two of those. here you see the revenue associated with adoption, $3.50 million.
6:23 am
the boulevard was constructed at a cost of approximately $23.50 million. in the adoption, the city has already sold, or is in contract to sell, five parcels. in addition, we have accounted for the cost of leases with caltrans for those ancillary projects underneath the freeway structure. caltrans is unable to sell those parcels to the city. we are required by state law to negotiate a fair-market place for those parcels. that is 20 years. you see the low income housing fund of $6 million.
6:24 am
with the revised estimate of the cost of restoration, there is potential for either breaking even or an approximate $3 million shortfall. i will also mention for those who recall the sale of parcel f the $2.50 million associated. i have also included the full $6 million in the uses column. the sale of that parcel stipulated that those funds go directly to the mayor's office of housing. to be technically correct, i might remove this line from the sources, and reduce the uses line. but for completeness, i included it here. i wanted to give you that footnote. to address the potential shortfalls i have discussed, we will look at those parcels which are not yet in contract for sale. there are a total of six parcels that, based on formal appraisals which have already been conducted, we have a good idea of the value,
6:25 am
approximately $4.70 million, which would more than account for the shortfall, should it occur. we have an ongoing revenue source coming from our existing leases. last but not least, i wanted to give the committee a quick picture of those items which should be coming before you in the near future. in the broadest scope, what we must complete are the central freeway chancellery project, the rehabilitation of van ness avenue, selling parcels that are not yet in contract, and executing and mou regarding timing and sequence of obligations. as for those items which might come before this committee, both leases for the state park and the dog run parcells will need board of supervisors approval. the street underneath mccoppin will need to be adjusted.
6:26 am
as a reminder, the items you have already authorized in the 2009 ordinance we discussed, which is the disposition of remaining parcels at market rates. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you. chairperson chu: thank you very much. do you want to open for public comment? supervisor olague: yes. there are no speaker cards. chairperson chu: are other members of the public who wish to speak on item 13? i do have two speaker calls i will call, michelle and robin. speak closer to the microphone. hold on one second. go ahead. >> does this work? i am michelle. i have been a software engineer in san francisco for the last nine years. six years ago, and became a
6:27 am
resident at 635 valencia. i bought into it as a second owner of a condo bill through the major's program. supervisor came, you were nice enough to come to our open house the other week. i wanted to be here to represent the valencia homeowners association and some residents, and let you know that we are patiently waiting and dealing with the everyday -- the homelessness and the letter, the vandalism that goes on under the freeway. it affects our everyday life. i moved in with the premise there were these funds reserved for these ancillary projects to build a dog park and a state park. -- skate park i hope the city reward our patience by not threatening the
6:28 am
funds that are budgeted for the ancillary projects, making sure that those to follow through and are not lost sight of. think you very much. chairperson chu: thank you very much, and thank you for your patience in waiting for the hearing. >> good afternoon, supervisors. rabin levitt, from the hayes valley neighborhood association. i am holding in my hand the text of proposition i, the last proposition that past, in 1999. i do not want to go into too much detail, but it is clear, and i will leave these copies with you, that the proposition -- the funds for the sale of freeway parcells was to go for transportation improvements related to our table and boulevard, and nothing else. not for building a boys and
6:29 am
girls club or building affordable housing, even though it calls for affordable housing in this area, but for transportation improvements related to octavia boulevard. these include the oak fell corridor, mission corridor, the upper market corridor, and so forth. hayes valley, if we had not spearheaded the effort to bring down the central freeway, would have the freeway there today and would not be having this discussion now. we spearheaded the effort to implement the market octavia plan, which calls for affordable housing in this neighborhood. we have been very supportive of affordable housing. we have been supportive of building new housing in this neighborhood. but also we had the expectation that there would be some transportation improvements related