Housing Committee

Lower San Antonio Collaborative
Housing Committee
Meeting Minutes

4/24/02

Present: Owusu Amoakohene, Urban Strategies Council; Jessica Pitt, Urban Strategies Council; Andy Nelsen, Urban Strategies Council; Jeff Abramson, Urban Strategies Council; Eric Cone, SACDC; Don Davenport, SACDC; Pat Constantine, SACDC; Catherine Firpo, CEDA; Mariano Jauco, EBALDC; Joshua Simon, EBALDC; Jennie Mollica, LFCD; Fred Blackwell, Annie E. Casey Foundation; Michael Rogers, RCD; Deva Dawson, Fannie Mae; Tracy Haines, FII; Wendy Simon, City of Oakland; Heather Hood, UCB/IURD; Libby Schaff, City of Oakland; Alyssa Dennis, Community Economics; Robert Henry, OCHI; Sky Dufaux, OCHI.

The meeting was called to order at 3:40 at Urban Strategies Council.

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Background on Making Connections Initiative and the Lower San Antonio Housing Committee
• Jennie Mollica presented a brief overview of the Initiative and the Housing Committee.
3. Presentation of Urban Strategies Council Data and Mapping
• A map of the Lower San Antonio showing vacant and blighted properties was posted on the wall and presented.
4. DiscussionCatherine Firpo facilitated a discussion to address the following questions:
• What do non-profit affordable housing developers need (for data analysis, site assembly, community support…) to facilitate development in Lower San Antonio?
• How can the Collaborative assist and work with affordable housing developers toward this end?
• How would a Scope of Work document be organized to best meet the needs of affordable housing developers?
• Comments and recommendations made included the following:
  1. It may be possible to consider converting existing rental housing to affordable rentals, condominiums or co-ops.
  2. The conversion of a large warehouse (approx. 40,000 sf) to affordable housing could serve as a hub for other acquisition. Industrial lots below the freeway could be considered. However, toxics will be a concern, and brownfields funding would need to be linked with acquisition funding in order to make the project feasible.
  3. Housing quality should be improved along with an increase in total number of affordable units. Slumlords should be pressured to comply with codes.
  4. What is most needed by developers are sites (with current owners willing to sell) and site acquisition funds (with time to negotiate options). Community support is also needed to avoid City condemnation of the project.
  5. The City should revisit the idea of target areas and provide information on available sites and toxics. Site acquisition funding is preferable over a NOFA because the process is quicker (and quick turn-over is key to site assembly and low land prices).
  6. The LSA Collaborative could be funded to negotiate and assemble sites, then put out an RFP (immediately on option) to developers. This would encourage developers to do work in this area where site assembly poses a challenge, and it would prevent multiple bidders raising the prices on desirable land. This would require that the Collaborative had funds to acquire the land and hold it, either with City or other funds. (Even with a 6-month option, developers would be under too much time pressure to make the project work.) A revolving fund for this site acquisition could allow developers to refund the costs of land. Holding costs would need to be considered, because these (insurance, taxes, security, interest, garbage, etc.) are high.
  7. The citywide land trust may offer an opportunity for this neighborhood. If LSA establishes a community land trust, this could be the entity to hold land (with options in place) and offer it to developers.
  8. The Collaborative could approach banks for site acquisition funds, but these carry interest and are typically small amounts. Also, only the City's site acquisition program covers holding costs. A loan guarantee might help somewhat in negotiation with banks. Fred Blackwell explained that the Casey Foundation could make available through Community Bank of the Bay possibly $500,000 in program-related investments and loan guarantees, but this would not leverage much. Because acquisition money is the most risky in the funding package, most banks want a large loan guarantee and maximum 70% loan-to-value.
  9. Blighted properties, particularly if they have some vacant units, can be converted to larger units and rehabilitated. These projects can seek Tax Credits for rehab, but not for acquisition costs.
  10. Mixed-use development should be encouraged, especially along 23rd Avenue. The Collaborative could play a role in matching interested commercial tenants, marketing to residential tenants, and even providing financing to entice developers. The recent BAE study says that there is no market base to encourage this commercial development.
  11. The challenge to the Collaborative is not to identify sites, but to reach owners and convince them to sell. A good local broker is needed to not only reach owners directly, but to generate discussion among residents that might produce leads, and to identify the issues that might bring owners to sell. Developers will never prioritize this effort, but the Collaborative may have the capacity. A broker, who typically would not be interested in assembling small sites, may need to be encouraged with a contract and a fee schedule.
  12. The Collaborative should obtain from developers a "wish list" for developable property: 30 units on 5 acres of land preferred, or 16-20 parcels of 3500 sf for scattered development; zoning allowance, a toxicity plan, a reasonable price (at appraised value), location by amenities, lack of community opposition… For rehab projects, the price must be far below market rate.
  13. The Collaborative can be helpful in gathering support from the community, which can then approach City Council (to advocate for City funding, or to convince an owner to sell), banks, HUD, tax credits.
5. Next Steps and Next Meeting Date/Location
   • The next meeting of the Housing Committee will take place Wednesday, May 29 at 3:30 at Urban Strategies Council.