Gamez, Xiomara
From: derrick quarles
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 7:30 AM
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Notice: Project: Planning Permit No. 21-0003649 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Shipra Rajesh -
Good morning,
I am writing to you about the consideration to construct a seven story multi-family residential building with 148 units at 2814 Empire Avenue.
I have received the public notice and l am interested in giving my input prior to a final decision.
Overall, the above project may become the catalyst for the Empire Avenue corridor in the golden state area of Burbank.
In addition, for the several other future SB35 projects now in the application process for this area as well.
Therefore, I have reviewed the proposed project and thus, exceeding the existing zoning limits from 5 to a 7 story building and
thus, increasing the number of units from 95 to 148 is not a good idea for our community.
Also, no parking stalls are being planned for these units.
We need to set a precedent for these SB35 types of projects for our local community.
And it starts with this proposed project.
This project is high density and would put a strain on our city resources such as police.
Also, street parking on adjacent streets will become an issue.
Overall, I am not in favor of the proposed project.
Reduced density and parking stalls are warranted.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Derrick Quarles
Ontario Street Owner and resident
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Pamela Kevan •
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:30 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2814 Empire Ave, Burbank Public Notice Attachments: Ltr - City of Burbank -re 2814 Empire Avenue Public Notice 10-30-22.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening Ms. Rajesh,
Thank you for returning my call earlier. I am sorry I missed you. Please see the attached letter from Mr. Gary Ricards, Owner of 2805 - 2817 W. Empire Avenue, Burbank CA.
Best regards,
Pam Kevan
Pamela Kevan
Romaga, Inc.
La Canada, CA 91011-2450
October 30, 2022
Burbank City Council
Attn: Shipra Rajesh
[email protected]
RE: 2814 Empire Avenue, Burbank
Dear Ms. Rajesh:
Please accept this letter as our response to the Public Notice to construct a 7 story multi-family residential building with 148 units at 2814 Empire Avenue, Burbank.
We would like to inform the City of Burbank that we are vehemently opposed to the building of a multi-family building in this area. The area is zoned for General Industrial per the City of Burbank's Zone map; not zoned for High Density Residential. Though there may be residences behind the commercial buildings in the area; they are primarily single-family dwelling and small apartment buildings. There are no other large residential buildings in this area of Empire. We believe that this location was not well thought through and that there must be a better suited location for this project - that would benefit both the local businesses and the new residents.
We strongly feel that there is an element of mental illness, drug abuse, and violence that come with bringing in the extremely low-income residents. There is a community park, Robert E.
Gross Park, next door to the proposed site and children play in the park regularly. How do you plan on securing the safety of the children in this park, and on preventing drug use and unacceptable behavior to happen? Are you going to provide security? And how do you intend on protecting our tenants and our tenants' customers from the disturbances that this kind of element brings to an area.
Additionally, there is the potential for an enormous loss of property value due to vagrancy and loitering that comes with this type of housing being situated in an area that is not appropriately suited for it.
How do you plan to ensure that we do not have issues on our property? Is the City of Burbank planning on increasing patrols in this area to guarantee the safety of the businesses in the area?
The area is not designed for multi-residential units, nor is it equipped with services for this type of building; especially with the type of extremely low-income residents that will be in need services close by due to the lack of private transportation. There are no local grocery or convenient stores in this area.
The proposed building is only providing 25 parking spaces for 148 units. This will increase the overflow of residential parking onto Empire; parking that is currently being utilized by the local businesses for customer parking. This will inconvenience the businesses and their customers; and potentially affecting the income of those businesses. The dynamics of the neighborhood is local Commercial Businesses - not low-income housing. There is a reason this area is zoned for industrial use - it is not a residential area.
As I mentioned above, I am extremely opposed to the building of this low-income apartment building and believe there are other locations in the City of Burbank better suited. I do not feel the area on Empire is best for the community or for the proposed apartment occupants.
Best regards,
Gary Richards,
Owner/CEO, Romaga Inc.
2805-2817 W. Empire Avenue
Gamez, Xiomara
From: lan Geddes •
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 1:19 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Residency at Empire I @ 2814 W Empire Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council
I support this project. We need affordable housing in Burbank. My parents are currently in need of affordable housing and after retirement, I will too.
Sincerely
lan Geddes
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Albert Otero
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 1:12 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ref: Residency at Empire I @ 2814 W Empire Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this in support of the Residency at Empire at 2814 W Empire Ave.
Affordable housing In California is badly needed. With the price of gas, inflation and medical costs, people can no longer afford basic housing. We need this type of developement. We do NOT need more tent cities! People who oppose this project should look at what's happening around us and how we can make a better future for the City of Burbank.
Please do your jobs and approve this project!
Sincerely,
Albert Otero
Sent from my iPad
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Gail Romero
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 3:30 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Availability of Council office, SB 35 projects on Empire Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
Firstly, I have tried several times this afternoon to reach your offices and get a message to "try again". That is totally unacceptable at 2 in the afternoon. I couldn't even leave a voice mail. Who is running the office, or should I ask who isn't?
Secondly, why am I, as a homeowner within 1,000 FEET of not one, but THREE 100% affordable housing projects just finding out that the council is voting on the one closest to me in two weeks? Of the 4 proposed projects, 3 of them (all by the SAME DEVELOPER), are over 600 units and so very close to my home. (And I note the Rancho project was denied) Why are all three within 2 blocks of each other? Why ALL in my neighborhood? I find this extremely unsettling. SEVEN STORIES on blocks with nothing over 3 stories. Why is this okay, even under SB 35 (which frankly I don't know why no one challenged)? Who is this guy coming from LA into a specific area of Burbank to "develop"? Also, there is no information about who will live there, what, if any, criteria will apply - only that they're extremely poor.
Are you going to put homeless people there? Right next to the park? There's no resident parking, another worrisome issue. I certainly hope that I can get some answers, to these and other questions, especially from those running for reelection, before this project appears before the council on November 1st.
Respectfully,
Gail Romero
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Gamez, Xiomara
From: Olivia Joncich
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 12:30 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Ramirez, Fred; Plambaeck, Scott; Rajesh, Shipra; City Attorney; Samir Srivastava; Dave Rand
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2814 Empire Avenue (Project No. 21-0003649) - 100% Affordable Housing Project
Attachments: 2814 Empire - Letter to Council - 10-31-22.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Please see the attached letter regarding the 100% affordable housing project at 2814 Empire Avenue. This project will be considered as Item 13 during the City Council meeting on Tuesday, November 1, 2022.
Thank you,
Olivia Joncich
Senior Planner
RAND|PASTER| NELSON
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Los Angeles, CA. 90071
RAND|PASTER| NELSON
Dave Rand
October 31, 2022
VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
Re: 2814 Empire Avenue (Project No. 21-0003649) - 100% Affordable Housing Project.
Dear Honorable Burbank City Councilmembers:
Our firm represents ABS Burbank LLC ("ABS"), the owner and applicant of an affordable housing development located at 2814 S. Empire Avenue in the City of Burbank (the "City"). The project includes the new construction of 148 affordable units (including 3 unrestricted manager units), seven parking spaces, open space, landscaping, and other associated improvements within a seven-story building (the "Project"). The Project seeks no local subsidies and would rely on state bond financing and tax credits as the primary financing mechanism. The Project includes a SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Review request to determine the Project's consistency with all applicable objective standards, as required by State law.
At the meeting on November 1, 2022, the City Council will consider a resolution to confirm the Community Development Director's Determination that the project is consistent with all applicable objective general plan, zoning, and design review standards. For the City Council's review, provided below is a summary of the applicable State statutory standards and requirements as well as a discussion of the Project's importance to Burbank's 2021-2029 Housing Element (the "Housing Element").
1. SB 35 and Density Bonus Statutory Requirements
The Project is eligible for SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Review ("SB 35 Review") because it meets the following criteria: a housing development project which contains two or more units, located on a parcel which is within an urbanized area and incorporated City limits and at least 75 percent of the parcel adjoins urban uses, and located on a site on which the General Plan land use designation permits residential or residential mixed-use development at 58 base residential units per acre.
As a Project eligible for SB 35 Review, the Project may also request a density bonus with incentives and concessions, consistent with State Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov. Code 65915), without requiring a discretionary review or environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Pursuant to SB 35, modifications to objective standards granted as part of a density, bonus concession, incentive, or parking reduction shall still be considered consistent with objective standards (Gov. Code 65913.4(5)). To accommodate the proposed 148 affordable units, the Project utilizes the following provisions of State Density Bonus Law and SB 35:
October 31, 2022
demonstrating adequate zoning capacity to meet its RHNA allocation and reduced the need for further rezoning through the Housing Element process.
The City recognizes the Project as one of the larger and important pending developments stating, "Several large residential projects in various stage of entitlement will contribute towards addressing Burbank's housing needs" and it goes on to describe the details of the pending Project, which include:
"2814 W. Empire Avenue proposes redevelopment of an existing restaurant in the Golden State Specific Plan with 148 units of 100% affordable housing. The applicant has applied for a SB 35 streamlining process as well as a preliminary application seeking vested rights pursuant to SB 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Additionally, the applicant is seeking a density bonus (to allow 98 additional units - which are included in the total 148 units) along with other concessions and waivers."
This description of the pending Project matches the Project currently before the City Council for consideration. Further, the Project provides a large majority of the total Very Low and Low Income restricted affordable units accounted for among the Housing Element's identified pending/pipeline projects. Adoption of the resolution to confirm the Project's compliance with all applicable objective standards will therefore assist the City with meeting its affordable housing obligations through required annual reporting to the Housing & Community Development Department ("HCD"). As such, we look forward to the approval of the Project by the City Council on November 1st.
Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
DR
cc: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
Shipra Rajesh, Senior Planner
Joseph McDougall, City Attorney
Samir Srivastava, ABS Properties
Dekermenji, Melissa
From: Philip cummings
Tuesday, November 01, 2022 4:57 PM
Sent:
To: City Council DL
[EXTERNAL] 2814 Empire Ave (Affordable housing)
Subject:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings to all,
Empire Ave. This is a wonderful project to improve the City of Burbank. I am very familiar with this area as it is my My name is Philip Cummings and I'm emailing you in Regards to the Affordable Housing project proposed on 2814 shortcut to the airport for business. I've driven through the area dozens of times and am very familiar with its location.As We know as the economy has caused finances to be very tight for a lot of people and families these days. A opportunity to live in a nice Affordable Housing project would be a much better to get people a new start at life and with which one. Endangering their lives either way. Allowing the community to change positively in an aesthetic way with this a bright future. Today people are barely able to feed themselves and buy medication. Some have to decide between Affordable Housing project will be a start to addressing the housing problems California is plagued with. I hope the City of Burbank embraces this project as a start in a new direction of housing to set a example for Los Angeles in general.
Unfortunately my mother lives in the community where there is very low availability for affordable housing and 1 know firsthand what this struggling is like.
This is great for the people of Burbank and looking forward to seeing the City grow positively.
Thank you for your Time.
Philip Cummings
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Dekermenji, Melissa
From: Bob Silvestri
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Springer, Sharon
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: From Sharon Springer
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sharon,
As a footnote to our conversation, I should have added that projects that qualify under Sb35, particularly if they are all levels of low income housing, are "entitled" to 'concessions' and 'waivers' of local regulations. However, those are largely nonspecific and unspecified in the law. But increased density is certainly one of the things the developer can ask for. It remains a case by case question as to what and which and the extent of such concessions and waivers. This is where having objective design standards can be of benefit. But one can also look the the General Plan and other reasons to deny or alter/reduce the developer's request.
Again, I will be interested to hear under what regulations the developer is making his requests (demands?) Bob
On 11/1/22 8:55 AM, Springer, Sharon wrote:
Public Hearing Item 13. 2814 W. Empire Avenue - proposed 148 units SB 35 https://burbank.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=6&event id=7549 The proposed project is on M2 land. A huge issue is that there are two more proximate proposals - 3000 and 3001 W. Empire Avenue - for a total of 619 units, low income, LIHTC, AB 2097, density bonus, 7 stories.
Active Projects:
https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/active-projects SB 35 Projects
2814 W. Empire Avenue - Residential
921 Riverside Drive - Pickwick Project Site
• 3000 W. Empire Ave
• 3001 W. Empire Ave
• 3201 W Olive Avenue
Sharon Springer
Council Member
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Hess, Justin
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Anthony, Konstantine; Frutos, Bob; Schultz, Nick; Springer, Sharon; Talamantes, Jess Cc: Wilke, Judie; Prescott, Patrick; McDougall, Joseph H.
Subiect: FW: Selection of Proposal for Potential Lease at 2244 N. Buena Vista Street (Former Boys and Girls Club)
Council, just fyi below...a full report will be prepared for you, but we wanted to provide you with an update. Thanks, Justin
From: Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:47 AM
To: Hess, Justin <[email protected]>; Wilke, Judie <[email protected]> Cc: McFarland, Simone<[email protected]>
Subject: Selection of Proposal for Potential Lease at 2244 N. Buena Vista Street (Former Boys and Girls Club) Justin,
CDD will be bringing a report to Council on November 1st asking for the ability to enter into negotiations for the leasing of the property located at 2244 N. Buena Vista, the former Boys and Girls Club. The City had three responses to the RFP asking for proposals. They came from Home Again LA (HALA), Kids Community Dental Clinic and Dreams to Reality Foundation. The proposals were rated by a committee made up of two Community Development Department team members, one Park and Recreation employee, one representative from the Burbank Chamber of Commerce and one committee member from the Community Development Goals Committee, the City's committee that reviews CCDBG funding requests.
HALA proposed to add to their existing programs by creating four tiny homes for families experiencing homelessness on the site, adding facilities to conducting screening assessments, program enrollment and offering confidential one-on-one counseling in a private atmosphere along with provide a resource room for partners who may need an office.
Kids Community Dental Clinic would move their existing 980-square-foot dentistry office, double their dental operatories, add quiet rooms, provide private office area and add onsite storage and training area that would double as a community conference room and create a workforce development program.
Dreams to Reality proposed the demolition of the existing building to build affordable housing.
The proposal ranking results were as follows:
#1 Home Again Los Angeles
#2 Kids Community Dental Clinic
#3 Dreams to Reality Foundation
While the first and second ratings were very close, HALA was rated as the top pick for the following reasons.
1. Helping to solve homelessness is one of the top priorities of the City Council.
2. Homeless concerns was one of the largest concerns voiced by the community during the 2022 Community Survey.
3. It was felt that HALA could use all of the space 20,000 square feet within the facility while Kids Community Dental Clinic programs may not need this large of a facility.
4. The Committee believed that there is a large number of homeless families within the City limits that could use assistance. While based on the numbers provided by Kid Community Dental Clinic, it seems as though they already serve the majority of Burbank's residents and an expansion would largely assist low-income residents from outside the City.
There was also discussion about whether or not they could both go into this facility. Based on the proposals, this would not be feasible.
CDD staff will make a commitment to work with Kids Community Dental Clinic to help identify their exact future needs, size of building and possible future locations by offering free capacity building consultant services funded through an existing CDBG allocation.
The committee's recommendation will be shared with all of the respondents today, but I wanted to be sure the Council knew as well.
Patrick
Patrick Prescott, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Burbank
(818) 238-5176
Working together for a safe, beautiful, and thriving community. 2 Gamez, Xiomara
From: Shanna Warren
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 10:58 AM
To: City Council DL
Cc: George, Sandra
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please share with our City Council members CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Burbank City Council members,
I'm writing to inform you that the Boys & Girls Club of Burbank and Greater East Valley's Board of Directors and I fully support the City Council moving forward with an agreement with Home Again Los Angeles to program the facility space at 2244 Buena Vista Street.
We hope this space, which we occupied for 25 years, allows them to continue to succeed in their mission to aid families who are experiencing temporary homelessness. During the span of time our Club occupied 2244 Buena Vista, we were able to serve over 15,000 children and their families. In fact, we even acted as an emergency shelter for HALA, at the time known as Family Promise. HALA's Chief Executive Officer, Albert Hernandez has been a friend and supporter of BGC for many years and I'm proud to say got his start in his non-profit career as a staff member working for me at the Boys & Girls Club so this is very full circle for us.
All of us at BGC have very fond memories of the "old club" as we refer to it but are so happy it will go on to house another great non-profit agency in the Burbank community. We will always be incredibly grateful to the City of Burbank and all of our current and past Council Members for everything they did to support the Boys & Girls Club and we wish you and HALA a wonderful partnership.
Sincerely,
Shanna Warren
Chief Executive Officer
Boys & Girls Club of Burbank
BOYS & GIRLS CLASS
EAST WAND GREATEN
WE ARE HIRING
Cick HERE to submit your application.
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Barbara Howell •
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 12:24 PM
To: Talamantes, Jess; Anthony, Konstantine; Frutos, Bob; Schultz, Nick; Springer, Sharon Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Home Again LA
Attachments: 2022 Home Again LA recommendation.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Talamantes and members of the City Council,
This evening 1 will be at the City Council meeting for the Proclamation of November as Burbank Temporary Aid Center Month. Due to conflict, I am not able to stay to speak to the topic of Home Again LA's proposal to use the property at 2244 N. Buena Vista Street as a much needed home for their growing programs.
The attached letter shares a few of my thoughts in support of this proposal.
I look forward to seeing you this evening!
Best,
CEO
Burbank CA 91506
Help BTAC Prevent Homelessness from Increasing in Burbank. Donate Now and make a difference in our community.
BTAC
Burbank Temporary Aid Center
BTAC
Burbank Temporary Aid Center •
November 1, 2022
Burbank City Council
Via email: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Talamantes and City Council Members:
This evening, one of the agenda item discussions will be about the former firehouse/former Boys & Girls Club at 2244 N. Buena Vista Street. I would like to add my support for the selection of Home Again LA to lease the facility.
Since joining Burbank Temporary Aid Center (BTAC) in 2004, I've hoped that there might be a time when the site could be used to provide more comprehensive services for those in and around Burbank who are experiencing homelessness. This proposal will help this become a reality.
As I have watched Home Again LA (HALA) evolve from a small Family Promise chapter to the dynamic organization it is today, I have been impressed with their dedication to serving the homeless. Early in the pandemic their residents that suddenly needed to be housed in hotels because of the issues surrounding COVID 19. They did not freeze in the face of the challenge. They found a way to make it work. This also meant that their traditional way of providing meals needed to be addressed. Fortunately, BTAC was able to be part of this by providing groceries for the families in these new conditions.
Although BTAC provides several services for homeless individuals, we frequently provide referrals to HALA, for the services and expertise in areas not included among our services. We appreciate having this resource in this community and our ongoing partnership with HALA.
I encourage you to support the recommendation that Home Again LA can find a new home at the 2244 N Buena Vista Street location. This space will allow them to grow, as they continue to provide important services for those who are currently homeless in the Burbank area.
Best wishes as you make your decision this evening.
Sincerely,
Barbara Howell
Executive Director/CEO
Tax ID #95-3309130 • www.theBTAC.org
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Patricia F Rivera
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 1:08 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support Home Again Los Angeles
Attachments: Support Albert Hernandez Home Again Los Angeles.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please refer to the attached letter for City Council members.
Thank You
Tequilas Burbank
Events Coordinator
Patricia F Rivera
1 Tequips
Burbank
November 1, 2022
Honorable Burbank City Council,
This letter is to support Home Again Los Angeles for the potential lease at 2244 N.
Buena Vista St., Burbank, CA.
We, Patricia and Carlos Rivera are not Burbank residents. We do, however, own a restaurant, Tequilas Cantina and Grill. We are also part owners of Morrison Burbank.
We have worked directly with Albert Hernandez, Chief Executive Officer, on various community projects. Our ongoing annual project is our Toy-Drive to benefit the clients from Home Again Los Angeles.
On several occasions we have customers who ask for a referral to an organization that can help someone they know with food, shelter and overall assistance.
We have always referred them to Mr. Hernandez. Through his organization, they have assisted our customers. As business owners, we believe Home Again is a definite asset to the community of Burbank.
Thank you for allowing us to express our support.
Sincerely,
Patricia & Carlos Rivera
Gamez, Xiomara
From: Lopez, Alondra
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Talamantes, Jess; Frutos, Bob; Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine; [email protected].; Springer, Sharon
Cc: Garzon, Viviana; George, Sandra
Subject: [EXTERNAL] From the Office of Assemblymember Friedman - Home Again LA - Letter of Attachments: Home Again Support Letter 10.31.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe Good Afternoon Honorable Mayor Talamantes, Vice Mayor Anthony and Councilmembers, Please see the attached letter from Assemblymember Friedman. Our office wrote a similar letter last year before Home Again LA rebranded. This letter is in reference to line item L for today's City Council meeting. I will be calling in during today's public comment and referencing this letter.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Alondra Lopez
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Burbank Field Representative for Assemblymember Laura Friedman, District 43
STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEES
PO. BOX 942849 Assembly CHAIR: TRANSPORTATION
SACRAMENTO. CA 94249-0043 ARTS. ENTERTAINMENT. SPORTS
(916) 319-2043 TOURISM. AND INTERNET MEDIA
FAX (916) 319-2143 Califarnia Regislature NATURAL RESOURCES WATER. PARKS AND WILDLIFE
DISTRICT OFFICE
300 EAST MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 504
BURBANK. CA 91502
(818) 558-3043
FAX (818) 558-3042
E-MAIL LAURA FRIEDMAN
Assemblymember.Friedman@ assembly.ca.gov ASSEMBLYMEMBER. FORTY-THIRD DISTRICT October 31, 2022
Honorable Members of the Burbank City Council
City of Burbank
275 E. Olive Ave.
Burbank, CA 91502
Dear Councilmembers:
It is with great pleasure that I write in support of Home Again Los Angele's request to secure the 2244 North Buena Vista Street facility through an agreement with the City of Burbank. This new location will enable them to better serve Burbank families and the surrounding community, addressing the homelessness crisis by providing critical services to our most vulnerable residents.
Home Again Los Angeles opened its doors in 2010 and since then has helped over 1,998 individuals and housed 611 families. During times of great uncertainty and insecurity, Home Again Los Angeles has been an anchor to many families, providing shelter and supportive services to people in need. However, while thousands of people seek out their services, the lack of sufficient space has made it difficult for their staff to assist their clientele. This organization has outgrown its current home, at a time when the need for their services has never been more urgent.
A larger facility will expand the ability of Home Again Los Angeles to meet the diverse needs of their clientele and our community. They will be able to store inventory to be given to families who need basic household goods. Parents will be able to have private counseling with case managers. In addition, the new facility will allow them to serve more people and host vital community workshops. This is a huge potential win for our vulnerable families who need support, especially during the pandemic, and a wonderful way to re-use this space vacated by the Boys & Girls Club for a community-based organization.
Clearly, Home Again Los Angeles requires additional space to meet the growing need presented by homeless individuals and families in our region. With their long-standing reputation for dedicated staff, effective programming and efficient use of their existing resources, I support their request to secure the 2244 North Buena Vista Street facility. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my District Office at (818) 558-3043. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LAURA FRIEDMAN
Assemblymember, 43 District
Gamez, Xiomara
From: George, Sandra
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 5:46 PM
To: City Clerks
Cc: Hess, Justin; Garzon, Viviana; McDougall, Joseph H.; Prescott, Patrick Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Thoughts on Home Again LA & the 2814 Empire project Attachments: Memo - 2814 Empire.pdf; Attachment 1.pdf; Attachment 2.pdf; Attachment 3.pdf; Attachment 4.pdf
Hello - one more comment for agenda items rEmpire Ave
development).
Please note: this was only sent to one Council Member.
BURBAN,
Sandy George
Executive Assistant | Burbank City Council Office
275 East Olive Ave Burbank CA 91502
P: 818.238.5751 | F: 818.238.5757 | [email protected] From: Nick Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 5:30 PM
To: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Thoughts on Home Again LA & the 2814 Empire project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Forwarded for inclusion in the public record.
From: Michael Cusumano
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 12:13 PM
To: Nick Schultz
Subject: Thoughts on Home Again LA & the 2814 Empire project Nick
How are you...? I hope all is well with you and your family...
I have two thoughts on the agenda tonight as follows:
1. The Home Again LA group is one of the most impactful groups in our community and they are doing amazing work in our community. I would strongly recommend that the council follow the staff recommendation and select this organization to lease the Buena Vista facility... Homelessness is, as you know, a critical issue today and Home Again LA has proven the ability to make huge difference here... 1 2. And secondly, there is a SB 35 project at 2814 W. Empire, Burbank that is being considered tonight by the Council that has a number of issues that are not addressed in the staff report that need to be addressed in order to fully assess the impact of this project on the community.
Pragmatic Issues.
There are a number of pragmatic issues that would be called into question in any review of this project were it not largely exempt from virtually all city development standards. Some or all of these issues may create impacts for the city that should be considered. These include:
1. The impact of 100% low-income housing on this neighborhood and this community. The development of 100% low-income housing in lieu of mixed income housing is inconsistent with current urban planning best practices and as well as the current policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The development of 100% low-income housing has long demonstrated that "the concentration of the poorest families creates problems that predictably become unmanageable, and the larger the public housing development, the more complex the problems" (Cisneros, 1995). As a result of lessons learned in this area, HUD has placed a renewed emphasis on mixed income housing and there is bipartisan consensus to end the concentration of low-income people in public housing (Brophy & Smith, 1997), and that mixed income housing is a vastly superior option that promotes greater social benefit as well as a furtherance of our goals of creating social equality, diversity, inclusion and social justice in our community.
2. Density. The density of this project which is in excess of 172 units to the acre is unprecedented in this city.
3. Lack of Amenities and Open Space. The lack of community amenities and reasonable open space are discriminatory against the low-income residents that will reside here and which is in conflict with our goals of creating social equality, diversity, inclusion and social justice.
4. Unit Sizes. This project proposes 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units that will range in size from 450 sq ft to 900 sf, which is about half of the size of units in other comparable projects in this city, and as such, these units by their design are discriminatory against the low-income residents that will reside here and in conflict with our goals of creating social equality, diversity, inclusion and social justice.
5. Lack of Parking. The lack of parking at this location will insure that this project will create enormous parking issues in this neighborhood. This issue will result in residents parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, will lead to permit parking throughout the adjacent neighborhoods, and will be a problem that can not be solved once it its created.
6. Height. The proposed seven (7) story project will dwarf all other buildings in this neighborhood.
7. Lack of Architectural Expression. The lack of architectural expression in the design of this project will not reflect well on the future prospects for pride of residency and will mark this project as a "low-income" property from the outset.
Compliance Issues.
2 While the pragmatic issues may not be relevant or actionable as a result of SB 35 and other related state mandates, there are compliance issues that are relevant that are not adequately addressed in the staff report, including but not limited to the following:
1. Fire Lane. In order to comply with applicable building and fire codes, a code compliant fire lane is required to provide access to all party of this building. This requirement is not subject to exception under SB 35 and other related state mandates. In order to comply with applicable building and fire codes a significant portion of the proposed fire lane is not provided for on the subject site, but on an adjacent site that is not a part of this project, and which is not owned by this developer.
Per attachment 3 hereto, a significant portion of the proposed fire lane exists through the city park, burdening the city property with a real or de facto easement. This real or de facto easement creates a number of issues for the city and the public including the following:
a. Would bar the city from the future use of the adjacent property. Should the city choose to build a teen center or a recreation center or other public benefit within the area identified as the fire lane, it would be effective barred from doing so as a result of the impact that such an act would have on the public safety of the residents of this project.
b. Compensation. The issuance of a real or de facto easement across public property is a conveyance of property rights to a private party that requires compensation to the city. The conveyance of property rights to a private party without a specific public hearing on the matter, fair compensation to the city and the adoption of a specific resolution related thereto is illegal.
2. Flood Zone. It's not clear from the staff report how the project can be built when a portion of the site is within the AE Flood Zone designation.
3. Failure to Notify Neighboring Property Owners of the Pending Action as Required by Burbank Municipal Code. It has been suggested that these was a failure to notify all neighboring property owners of the pending action as required by Burbank Municipal Code.
References:
Brophy, Paul C. & Smith, Rhonda N., 1997, "Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success" Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol 3, No. 2, U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research
Cisneros, Henry G. 1995. Legacy for Reinvented HUD: Charting a New Course in Changing And Demanding Times", ", Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol 1, No. 3. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research Michael Cusumano
Managing Director
CUSUMANO BUR-CAL BURBANK
REAL ESTATE GROUP MANAGEMENT SENIOR APARTMANTS
Cusumano Real Estate Group
101 South First Street, Suite 400
Burbank, CA 91502
3 November 1, 2022
Memo: Concerned Parties in Burbank
Re: SB 35 project at 2814 W. Empire, Burbank
There is a SB 35 project at 2814 W. Empire, Burbank that is being considered tonight by the Council that has a number of issues that are not addressed in the staff report that need to be addressed in order to fully assess the impact of this project on the community.
Pragmatic Issues.
There are a number of pragmatic issues that would be called into question in any review of this project were it not largely exempt from virtually all city development standards. Some or all of these issues may create impacts for the city that should be considered. These include:
1) The impact of 100% low-income housing on this neighborhood and this community. The development of 100% low-income housing in lieu of mixed income housing is inconsistent with current urban planning best practices and as well as the current policies of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The development of 100% low-income housing has long demonstrated that "the concentration of the poorest families creates problems that predictably become unmanageable, and the larger the public housing development, the more complex the problems" (Cisneros, 1995). As a result of lessons learned in this area, HUD has placed a renewed emphasis on mixed income housing and there is bipartisan consensus to end the concentration of low-income people in public housing (Brophy & Smith, 1997), and that mixed income housing is a vastly superior option that promotes greater social benefit as well as a furtherance of our goals of creating social equality, diversity, inclusion and social justice in our community. 2) Density. The density of this project which is in excess of 172 units to the acre is unprecedented in this city.
3) Lack of Amenities and Open Space. The lack of community amenities and reasonable open space are discriminatory against the low-income residents that will reside here and which is in conflict with our goals of creating social equality, diversity, inclusion and social justice.
4) Unit Sizes. This project proposes 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units that will range in size from 450 sq ft to 900 sf, which is about half of the size of units in other comparable projects in this city, and as such, these units by their design are discriminatory against the low-income residents that will reside here and in conflict with our goals of creating social equality, 5) Lack of Parking. The lack of parking at this location will insure that this project will create enormous parking issues in this neighborhood. This issue will result in residents parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, will lead to permit parking throughout the adjacent neighborhoods, and will be a problem that can not be solved once it its created. 6) Height. The proposed seven (7) story project will dwarf all other buildings in this neighborhood.
7) Lack of Architectural Expression. The lack of architectural expression in the design of this project will not reflect well on the future prospects for pride of residency and will mark this project as a "low-income" property from the outset.
Compliance Issues.
While the pragmatic issues may not be relevant or actionable as a result of SB 35 and other related state mandates, there are compliance issues that are relevant that are not adequately addressed in the staff report, including but not limited to the following:
1) Fire Lane. In order to comply with applicable building and fire codes, a code compliant fire lane is required to provide access to all party of this building. This requirement is not subject to exception under SB 35 and other related state mandates. In order to comply with applicable building and fire codes a significant portion of the proposed fire lane is not provided for on the subject site, but on an adjacent site that is not a part of this project, and which is not owned by this developer.
Per attachment 3 hereto, a significant portion of the proposed fire lane exists through the city park, burdening the city property with a real or de facto easement. This real or de facto easement creates a number of issues for the city and the public including the following:
a) Would bar the city from the future use of the adjacent property. Should the city choose to build a teen center or a recreation center or other public benefit within the area identified as the fire lane, it would be effective barred from doing so as a result of the impact that such an act would have on the public safety of the residents of this project. b) Compensation. The issuance of a real or de facto easement across public property is a conveyance of property rights to a private party that requires compensation to the city.
The conveyance of property rights to a private party without a specific public hearing on the matter, fair compensation to the city and the adoption of a specific resolution related thereto is illegal.
2) Flood Zone. It's not clear from the staff report how the project can be built when a portion of the site is within the AE Flood Zone designation.
3) Failure to Notify Neighboring Property Owners of the Pending Action as Required by Burbank Municipal Code. It has been suggested that these was a failure to notify all neighboring property owners of the pending action as required by Burbank Municipal Code.
References:
Brophy, Paul C. & Smith, Rhonda N., 1997, "Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success" Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol 3, No. 2, U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research Cisneros, Henry G. 1995. Legacy for Reinvented HUD: Charting a New Course in Changing And Demanding Times", Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol 1, No.
3. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research
February 23, 2022
Wire Instructions:
Burbank Development, Inc
101 S First Street, Suite 400
Burbank, CA 91502
JP Morgan Chase
PO Box 182051
Columbus, OH 43218-2051
1 November
5, 2020
Fewer than 10 percent of rental units are
affordable to renter households earning
50 percent of median renter income,
according to Freddie Mac. This is an
indication that rental affordability
continues to be a problem and that the
supply of affordable housing is
insufficient to meet current demand.
"The market is doing well-much better
than typical market-rate developments,"
said Albert Milo, president of Related
Urban Development Group, the
affordable housing division of Miami-
based The Related Group. "However,
there are a lot of challenges, due to
people's abilities to pay the rents long-
term and what's going to happen now
as these moratoriums on rent collections
and evictions start to expire. And
COVID-19 is actually increasing the
demand for affordable housing."
43 Green is a mixed-income, mixed-use and transit-oriented development project in Chicago under development by The Habitat Co. Image courtesy of The Habitat Co.
According to Moody's Analytics REIS, the
national vacancy rate for the affordable
housing sector was 2.4 percent in the
second quarter of 2020 and is expected
to remain flat through the end of the
year. Construction of low-income
housing was not impacted by COVID-19
delays because affordable housing
construction was deemed essential due
to the critical need.
Unlike the standalone low-income
housing buildings of the past, however,
affordable housing projects today are
likely to be mixed-income to make the
deal more feasible due to the broad
range of incomes. They may even be
part of a mixed-use community. One
example by Habitat is 43 Green, a three-
building transit-oriented development
expected to break ground in Chicago in
2021.
"Mixed-income, mixed-use and transit-
oriented development is the winning
trifecta for the future of underserved
neighborhoods across the country," said
Charlton Hamer, senior vice president at
Habitat Affordable Group. "The formula
works because it infuses neighborhoods
with desperately needed resources that
will fuel long-term growth."
Sector Insights rotates among market
rate/luxury housing, workforce housing,
low-income housing, student housing.
senior housing and mixed-use.
Read the November 2020 issue of MHN.
2 Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
Mixed-Income Housing:
Factors for Success
Paul C. Brophy
Paul C. Brophy & Associates
Rhonda N. Smith
Recapitalization Advisors, Inc.
Abstract
A renewed emphusis has been placed on mixed-income housing through HUD's HOPE VI progrum and the bipartisan consensus to end the concentration of lon- income people in public housing. Through an analysis of seven successful mixed- income housing developments, this article defines a research and learning agenda for academics and practitioners in the field. Preliminary analysis indicates that successful mixed-income developinents must be well located and excellent in their design and management if they are to attract renters who have location choices.
Mixed-income housing works best where there are sufficient units aimed at the higher income renters lo create a critical mass of market units and where there are no differences in the nature and quality of the units being offered that are due to the income of the renters. If upward mobility of the low-income residents is a goal, it is necessary to have activities that are specifically aimed at creating opportunities for them: income mixing alone is not sufficient. Perhaps the biggest challenge is income integration in neighborhood settings where properly management is not able to set behavioral norms.
During the first Clinton administration, a bipartisan consensus developed that this Nation United States. These demolitions were usually associated with the award of funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) HOPE VI program, residents to projects generally viewed as unsafe and troubled, led to a continuing decline in the average income of public housing residents. As one HUD document stated, "The concentration of the poorest families creates problems that predictably become unman- ageable, and the larger the public housing development, the more complex the problems" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1995).
Cityscupe: A Journal of Policy Development and Rescarch • Volume 3. Number 2 • 1997 Cityscape 3 U.S. Department of lousing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research Brophy and Smith
The 1993 Appropriations Act authorized funds for the HOPE VI program, permitting prehensive renovation of public housing projects, many of which are being converted to mixcd-income developments. Secretary Cisneros summed up the new approach:
impoverished families a stable platform for working their way toward self sufficiency Similarly, the aggressive efforts to move a substantial portion of the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA's) multifamily portfolio into a new economic framework through a mark-to-market approach has important consequences for owners who face competition for tenants at various income levels.? In some of these developments, subsidy reductions may require an effort to attract moderate-income and market-rate renters to sites that, to date, have had only low-income tenants.
This movement toward mixed-income housing is based on the widely held belief that mixed-income, multifamily housing is preferable to housing in which large numbers of low-income residents are clustered together. Yet our knowledge about the correctness of this assumption and the factors that contribute to successful mixed-income housing is extremely limited. The literature is sparse, and the exchange among developers and property managers is largely anecdotal.? However, an in-depth study published in 1974 that measured success by higher levels of satisfaction among tenants in mixed-income developments found that income mixing works. The primary reasons for the increased satisfaction were related to the quality of the development, specifically its "superior design, construction, and management." (Ryan et al., 1974.) Much of the for-profit development industry views mixed-income housing as a higher risk than either fully conventional market-rate housing or totally subsidized developments.
There is also a sense that mixed-income housing is too complicated to manage, given the varying income communities, their needs, and the potential conflicts. Hence the number of planned, mixed-income developments in the United States is quite limited.* Defining Terms
Clarity about the meaning of the term mixed-income and about the question of whethe he mix is a planned effort to integrate a development or a neighborhood economicall is of fundamental importance to a discussion of mixed-income housing. In a very basic sense, mixed-income housing is not a new phenomenon. Many urban American neighbor- hoods have residents of varied incomes, and two of our most prominent new towns of the 1960s and 1970s—Columbia, Maryland, and Reston, Virginia—-were planned for a mix of incomes. In addition, the State of Massachusetts has promoted mixed-income housing through a variety of funding programs since the creation of its housing finance agency in 1966 (Gallese, 1974).
4 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
The term does not carry a formal definition in the housing field. It means different things to different people and varies by housing market. Alex Schwartz and Kian Tajbakhsh, for example, categorize mixed-income housing based on whether it is mixed at the project level or the neighborhood level and whether the sponsors/owners are public, private, or a combination of the two (Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1996). In the context of this article, mixed-income housing means a deliberate effort to construct and/or own a multifamily development that has the mixing of income groups as a fundamental part of its financial and operating plans. The ratio of income levels and the developer's reasons for seeking to create a mixed-income development will vary. In general, however, a mix of incomes is planned because of the juncture of community desire and need, housing market conditions in the surrounding area, and the availability of financing and/or subsidies.
This article frames the issues in the management of mixed-income housing, both for pur- poses of stimulating a research agenda and to share preliminary findings with owners, developers, and policymakers involved with mixed-income housing. Seven multifamily mixed-income developments are reviewed. These sites, chosen on the basis of geographic diversity, the nature of the housing market in their environs, building type, population mix, ownership entity, and years in operation, are:
• Harbor Point, a 1,283-unit rental development on the site of a former troubled public housing project, Columbia Point, in Boston, Massachusetts. • Jones Family Apartments, a 108-unit highrise in San Francisco's Tenderloin District that mixes very-low-income and low-income residents.
• Emery Bay Club and Apartments, a 260-unit garden apartment project in Emeryville, California, immediately north of Oakland.
• Tent City, a 269-unit development in downtown Boston, the result of community activists' demand for affordable housing.
• Timberlawn Crescent, a 107-unit, garden-style rental development in suburban Mont- gomery County, Maryland
• The Residences at Ninth Square, a 335-unit, mixed-use development in New Haven, Connecticut, with 50,000 square feet of commercial space. • New Quality Hill, a 466-unit development of townhouses and rehabilitated midrise structures adjoining downtown Kansas City, Missouri.
Each site has been visited by the authors, and interviews have been conducted with the developer, property manager, residents, and other relevant participants or partners. Rent rolls, crime rates, financial reports, and other indicators of project condition have been eviewed.' Although the review is not a structured, scientific sample, the diversity of th levelopments provides a basis for describing the dimensions of success and drawing i research agenda for more in-depth study of mixed-income housing Perceived Benefits of Mixed-Income Housing
Proponents of mixed-income housing see it as a tool to address the difficulties related to what has been termed the culture of poverty. This phrase derives from the view that physi- cal concentration of poor households in multifamily projects causes severe problems for the residents, including joblessness, drug abuse, and welfare dependency. According to Cityscape 5
Brophy and Smith
this theory, a mixture of income levels will reduce the social pathology caused by concen- tration.? Anticipated results of mixed-income housing include the following:
• The behavior patterns of some lower income residents will be altered by emulating those of their higher income neighbors. The quality of the living environment, not housing quality alone, leads to upward mobility.
• Nonworking low-income tenants will find their way into the workplace in greater numbers because of the social norms of their new environment (for example, going to work/school every day) and the informal networking with employed neighbors. • The crime rate will fall because the higher income households will demand a stricter and better enforced set of ground rules for the community. • Low-income houscholds will have the benefit of better schools, access to jobs, and enhanced safety, enabling them to move themselves and their children beyond their current economic condition.'
Many of these anticipated results are subtle and difficult to measure. Unlike such a quantifiable result as the effect of mixed incomes on the project's financial condition, analysis of the effects of mixed-income housing on the behavior of residents must take into account the subtleties of human behavior. It is also important to differentiate between two reasons for these intended benefits. First, if low-income tenants are subsidized to live in developments that are in locations with good schools, low crime rates, and access to jobs, there is some likelihood that the benefits of the location will result in the anticipated outcomes described above." One entire branch of HUD's reinvention during Cisneros' tenure as Secretary was based on the premise that housing vouchers that could be used in mixed-income developments and neighborhoods would contribute to the upward mobility of low-income renters. In the case of severely distressed public housing in blighted inner-city areas however, such an assumption may be problematic. At least for the present, these locations offer few of the desired benefits. Thus the question is whether an environment created within the development can compensate for the shortcomings of the surrounding community.
Conversely, if the benefits to be garnered by the low-income population in a mixed-income development are to result primarily from interaction among income groups in the devel- opment, they will be achieved only if there is, in fact, interaction. Proponents of mixed- income housing must account for the fact that interaction and neighboring in the United States have been in decline and may be particularly low among mobile renters, regardless of their income levels.!? Renters move more frequently than owners. They may be at a period in their lives when neighboring is relatively unimportant and may already be con- sidering their next move, whether to another rental property or to homeownership. ' Ir one of the projects surveyed for this article, the market-rate units had an annual turnover The residents who were interviewed generally described low or very low levels of neigh- boring, even lacking the ability to name their immediate neighbors. In rental develop- ments such as these, the mere physical integration of tenants with mixed incomes is unlikely to produce the intended results.
6 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
The Developments
Harbor Point, Boston, Massachusetts
Table 1
Income Mix: Harbor Point
Income Mix < 50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 59% 14% 8% 18%
Number of Units: 1,283, with modest commercial space
Placed in Service: 1988
Ownership: Private, for-profit company with former public housing residents as partners Rent Range: $795-$1,395 per month
* Area Median Income.
Source: Schubert and Thresher, 1996.
Harbor Point is a mixed-income development located on a dramatic waterfront site adjacent to the John F. Kennedy Library and the University of Massachusetts at Boston.
The project, formerly the Columbia Point public housing development owned by the Boston Housing Authority, had become a classic troubled, family highrise public housing roject. inundated with crime and drugs. By 1979
miere, inind ed wied. But and wake is sucess transform the origio mi,ed- income housing, the development has achieved a reputation as a prototype for mixing market-rate units with public housing.
History. The transition of Columbia Point was spearheaded by tenants who are now be low-income tenants. Some of the highrise buildings were demolished to make way for townhouse construction, while others were renovated.
Complex financing was required in order to assemble the $250 million needed for the new HUD came a Turban eyelides Action Grait (DAG) oF 12 milion and a dam Initiatives loan of $9 million. The remaining $75 million came from equity. Ongoing operating subsidies are provided by a combination of Federal and State programs.
Tenant Composition and Interaction. Harbor Point is located in Dorchester, a Boston neighborhood with a reputation for high crime rates. Yet its proximity to downtown Boston and other large employment centers, as well as its waterfront location, gave the developers an opportunity to create a viable mixed-income development. Emphasis was placed on making the units attractive, the community safe, and the amenity package suffi- cient to attract market-rate tenants. With a swimming pool, tennis courts, fitness center, and free parking, Harbor Point can offer a package of amenities unavailable at similar rents in downtown Boston.
Cityscape 7
Brophy and Smith
Rents for the project's 883 market-rate units range from $795 for a one-bedroom unit to $1,395 for three bedrooms—a bargain in the Boston area, especially for apartments with modern amenities. Rents for the 400 subsidized units range from $863 for a one- bedroom unit to $1,139 for four bedrooms. HUD's Section 8 certificates subsidize 350 of these units and the remainder are subsidized by a similar State program in which the residents' portion of the rent is equal to 35 percent of their income. The rental subsidies for the low-income units seem to enable the project to offer competitive rents on the market-rate units.
The market-rate units are occupied by a wide range of tenants, from students to profes- sionals, many of them foreign nationals living in Boston for a limited period. At times, residents have represented as many as 40 nations. The market-rate units are ethnically and racially diverse, with only 43 percent occupied by white households. These mobile, market-rate households have few children. On average only about 6 percent of the units house a child, usually an infant or preschooler. The median household income for the market-rate units is $41,000 a year, and the turnover rate is about 50 percent.!* Many of the subsidized units are occupied by minority families with children. A total of 285 families, about 70 percent of which are minority headed, were residents of the former public housing project. On average, 2.3 children live in each unit. Most of the household heads in these units receive public assistance. The median income is $10,000 a year, and the annual turnover rate of 5-7 percent is far lower than in the market-rate units. The amenities package and a set of active community and social service programs are available to the occupants of subsidized Harbor Point units. An outside contractor provides the social services, including a health clinic, daycare center, and youth activities.
Resident leadership reports a modest amount of participation by market-rate residents in the project's mentoring program, a type of big brother or big sister arrangement.
When a tenant is in danger of being evicted or persists in engaging in behavior that is inconsistent with the community's rules, a Tenant-at-Risk Committee composed of resi- dent leaders meets with the subsidized household to ensure that the resident is fully aware of the possibility of eviction. Evictions in the subsidized category are low. In 1995, approximately 50 households were evicted-most of them market-rate renters. Forty of the evictions were for nonpayment of rent and 10 for violation of project rules. However, the manager noted an emerging trend: while the majority of market-rate evictions were for nonpayment, eviction for cause was more prevalent among subsidized tenants.
Harbor Point is generally well maintained, as it must compete successfully with similarly priced market-rate developments. However, its location on the waterfront places a greater strain on the building exteriors than might otherwise occur and makes maintenance a constant challenge for management.
Crime in the surrounding neighborhood is higher than in Harbor Point, where a security company operates under contract to the resident owners. Management reports some ten- sion between the children in the project—-particularly the teens-—and the market-rate tenants. There is a fair amount of vandalism to vehicles, thought to be largely the work of teenagers. In the view of the manager, this phenomenon is due in part to animosity from the youths of the subsidized units toward their more affluent neighbors. The result is a certain amount of fear of the teens on the part of some residents.
When the units are marketed, no reference is made to the fact that Harbor Point is located in Dorchester, an area with a reputation for high crime rates. Concerned that this fact would deter prospective tenants, the leasing staff encourages them to view the community 8 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
betore revealing its location. The community is separated from the rest of Dorchester by a highway and by its location on a point jutting into the harbor. Leasing agents mention the mixed-income nature of the development but do not emphasize it. Instead they focus on such assets as water access, proximity to mass transportation, the recent renovation of the units, and free parking. Most market-rate renters seem inattentive to the income mix.
With regard to the level of interaction between the market-rate and subsidized tenants, the two groups "coexist." Management sets and enforces clear rules so that the project func- ions well for everyone. All new tenants are given a thorough orientation to the rules Management and residents regularly sponsor a "Munch and Mingle" event for new resi dents to help them meet their neighbors. Attendance, however, is modest and composed largely of subsidized residents.
The physical layout of Harbor Point, with the townhouse units grouped along the periph- ery of the project, has resulted in some divisions among income groups. The three- and four-bedroom townhouses are intended to accommodate the community's families. Since the majority of these are subsidized, there is a de facto concentration of low-income rent- ers in these units. Moreover, management has observed a trend of transfers by market-rate tenants from the townhouses to the midrise and highrise buildings that have only one- and two-bedroom units. The demographics of one section of townhouses has become particu- larly skewed, with the ratio of subsidized tenants to market-rate renters as high as 15 to 1.
Not only is such a tendency counter to the original income-mix goals, but it seems also to have increased tension between the market-rate and subsidized residents.
Commentary. As a complex development, Harbor Point is a remarkable accomplishment.
This large urban project has clearly improved the physical and community conditions for a group of low-income tenants who had been living in very distressed public housing. Through hard work and strong marketing, Columbia Point has become a financially viable, desirable mixed-income development, attractive to a mobile population seeking housing of an urban nature in Boston. The former public housing residents are justifiably proud of what they have accomplished to improve their housing and their neighborhood.
The subsidized residents and the market-rate tenants "coexist," to use one official's de- scription. The mobile and upwardly mobile market-rate residents generally have little time for, or interest in, significant neighboring activities. For them, the project's attrac- tions are its location, design quality, and price. The community of former public housing residents and other subsidized renters continues to have a commitment to the project as a place to live and to neighbor. They have much more in common with one another— including children-than they do with the market-rate tenants.
Since the development is situated near large job centers in and around Boston, it is clear aggressive welfare-to-work program might be appropriate but is not currently a priority for the owners of the project.
From a leasing standpoint, the 70/30 split between market-rate and subsidized units may be less than is ideal. The leasing staff see a market for a set of units that are priced be- tween the low-income and the market-rate units. Ideally, a split into thirds of low-income, moderate-income, and market-rate rentals would have been desirable, but a moderate- income subsidy was not available when the project's finances were structured.
Cityscape 9
Brophy and Smith
Jones Family Apartments, San Francisco, California
Table 2
Income Mix: Jones Family Apartments
Income Mix < 50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 88% 7% 3% 3%
Number of Units: 108, with modest commercial space
Placed in Service: 1993
Ownership: Private, nonprofit organization with religious affiliation Rent Range: $332-$689 per month
* Area Median Income,
The Tenderloin district in San Francisco is the setting for 111 Jones Street, a 108-unit building developed by Mercy/Charities Housing, a nonprofit developer/owner/manager of housing for low- and moderate-income families. The Tenderloin, a multicultural, inner-city neighborhood of 25,000 people, houses a large number of San Francisco's recent immigrants. Forty percent of the 18,000 housing units in the neighborhood are -the highest concentration in the city-and more
than 4,000 children are crowded into these SROs and hotels. Although the Tenderloin has the highest crime rate of any area in San Francisco, downtown is within walking distance and there is easy access to other parts of the Bay area through the mass transit system (North of Market Planning Coalition, 1992).
The corner on which 111 Jones is located was the site of significant crime and drug use before the building was constructed. While this activity is now gone from the corner, the area is still noted for drug use, pornographic retail outlets, and bars. Yet there is a vibrancy in the carthiness of the neighborhood and its resident leadership is determined to improve the area without allowing housing to become unaffordable to current residents.
History. Jones Family Apartments is an attractive, eight-story building with a lobby controlled by card access and staffed by a desk clerk 24 hours a day. A warm, friendly interior courtyard connects the apartments to a separately owned residential building that er month. The range of the lowest to highest rents is a factor of 2:1. All residents pay th pecified rent through the Section 8 program. Tenant incomes range from $6,500 (includ more than 50 percent of the housholas receive some fom of pale as sane. the rents IS with a median income of $14,633. Slightly and amenities offered.
10 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
This was an expensive project to develop; overall costs totaled $18.6 million, or $172,600 per unit. Permanent financing was a combination of tax credit equity from Fannie Mae, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and California's Rental Housing Construc- tion Program. Aside from a bridge loan, the project has no amortizing debt. Each of the funding sources placed rent restrictions on the property. Just under one-half of the rental income is in the form of tenant assistance payments from a California program. The bulk of the costs for supportive services are raised from charitable sources and are not included in the project budget. Since the project has no market-rate rentals, cross- subsidization is a moot point.
Tenant Composition. Jones Family Apartments is a deliberate effort to mix low- and moderate-income groups. Given its location, rent levels, and demand for units, manage- ment is not concerned with marketing the project. There is a waiting list for all units.
Tenants are selected on the basis of a careful screening system, including home visits, in an effort to filter out prospects who are unlikely to live by the building's rules and adapt to its culture. Strict building rules are enforced: drugs are forbidden, as is the consumption of alcohol in public spaces; overnight guests must be registered with front desk staff; and children must be supervised.
Considerable energy is directed to building community and to integration of the many immigrants into American society. Residents of 111 Jones Street are a diverse mix of re- cent arrivals—Arab, Asian, Hispanic, Polish, Russian—-and a limited number of African- American and European-American households. The dynamics of making the building work well as a community have much more to do with the intercultural issues than with differences in income. Management works hard to develop an identity for each of the ethnic groups living in the apartments. A special celebration for each ethnic group pro- motes its ethnic identity and facilitates interaction among residents with a common lan- guage. Buildingwide meetings and celebrations are also held. A trained social worker works on site to help residents with project-related and personal issues.
Management also has worked hard to find activities for the 220 children living in this building and the adjoining, separately owned development. Control of children is a key ele- ment in the smooth functioning of the building work, particularly because the surrounding area is not perceived as a safe place for them to play. Philanthropic resources are being used to involve the Boys' and Girls' Clubs, which now provide an active after-school and leader- ship development program for the children. Many volunteers from outside the project are involved in social services and recreational activities, including a career resource center, literacy classes, a computer lab, citizenship classes, and refugee aid. All of this activity occurs in the community space designed for the building. There is a turnover of only two or three units a year, usually due to the death of an older resident or movement back to the country of origin. The project is financially healthy, and there has been only one eviction thus far.
Commentary. The income mix at 111 Jones Street is very different from that of the other developments investigated. It is a mix of tenants subsidized at various levels, few of whom re mobile or affluent. It is a mix of workers and nonworkers, young and old. And althoug! he neighborhood containing the project is very troubled, the tight San Francisco housing market makes it easy for management to find tenants desirous of living in a clean, safe envi- ronment with clear rules of behavior enforced for all. The social worker's presence and the activities give 111 Jones Street the feel of a residential settlement house, where many recen immigrants become citizens and embrace the American culture and economy.
Cityscape 11
Brophy and Smith
The success of this low- and moderate-income development is due in part to an intensive staff effort to build the community and to help individuals and families cope with issues that affect their lives. A professional management/social service team works to support the physical and social structures of the building. While a philosophy of being helpful has been instilled by the owner, no resident is allowed to remain in the building if he or she is causing problems for the community. Rules are clear and security is high. Rents are collected promptly. An excellent maintenance staff keeps the physically attractive building in top condition.
While it might have been possible to increase rents and attract market-rate tenants, the developers' intent was to build a community of low- and moderate-income households and to help them live together harmoniously in a safe, financially sound property. The emphasis on community building and social services at 111 Jones Street may indicate the importance of budgeting for and delivering services in projects that combine very poor families (at the public housing level) with tax credit families (below 60 percent of the median income. In fact, with this type of income mix, provision of supportive services may be as important as location and the quality of design.
Emery Bay Club and Apartments, Emeryville, California
Table 3
Income Mix: Emery Bay Club and Apartments
Income Mix < 50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 23% 36% 11% 29%
Number of Units: 260 units (Phase Il); adjoins 424 unit market-rate development Placed in Service: 1993
Ownership: Private, for-profit, and nonprofit joint venture Rent Range: $511-$1,685
* Area Median Income.
A subway ride away from San Francisco's Tenderloin, and at the opposite end of the market-rate development.
History. The creation of Emery Bay II as a mixed-income development combined 12 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
approximately $100,000 per unit. In addition, the city agreed to forgo property taxes on the affordable housing units in Emery Bay Il as part of an ongoing operating subsidy.
The Emery Bay apartments are split into three groups:
• 156 of the units are market-rate rentals ranging from $990 for a studio to $1,685 for a 1300-square-foot, three-bedroom apartment.
• 52 similar units are rented to households with total income below 80 percent of me- dian; rents range from $727 for a studio apartment to $1,020 for three bedrooms. • 52 units are rented to households with incomes below 50 percent of median at rents ranging from $511 to $730.
Since the median income in the Bay Area is higher than those in many other parts of the Nation, the maximum income for households in the lowest income category ranges from $20,450 for one person to $29,200 for four persons.
Tenant Composition. The resident profile for Emery Bay II shows that just under 30 percent of the apartments are rented to professionals, whose incomes range trom $17,743 to $153,000. Another 20 percent are rented to students, and almost one-third are rented to tenants employed in blue-collar, clerical, or sales positions with incomes ranging from $16,000 to $56,400. The quality of the development's design is high, and there is an at- tractive package of amenities. The rent includes membership in the Emery Bay Health Club, a year-round heated pool and spa. Access to the site is controlled, and there is ample parking. The development is located across the street from a movie theater and is a short walk from a complex containing a market, bookstore, restaurants, and other retail shops. A shuttle bus connects Emery Bay II to the region's mass transit system.
The vast majority of the development's residents are highly mobile. Turnover of the market-rate units is 80 percent a year, and even the most deeply subsidized units have a 25-percent annual turnover, This movement has little to do with dissatisfaction with Emery Bay Il, and much more to do with the nature of the tenancy. Many workers who are transferred to the Bay Area use Emery Bay II and similar rental projects as a landing place while they decide on the purchase of a home or a move to another rental commu- nity. Understandably, there is very little neighboring under these conditions, and it is further limited by the small number of children in the complex. Only 2 to 3 percent of the units have any children. A monthly brunch sponsored by management draws approxi- mately 100 participants. The population is diverse ethnically and racially.
Prospective tenants are informed of the mixed-income nature of the project, but the ncome mixing seems to be a relatively unimportant consideration for the market-rat tenants. They are drawn to Emery Bay II because it is priced competitively, given it location, amenity package, and security features. Prospective tenants are screened by landlord checks, credit checks, and a search for past evictions. police department patrols regularly, and a card entry system to access the property pro- vides additional security.
Commentary. Emery Bay II is an example of successful market-driven, mixed-income housing. The income mix permitted it to be developed at a time when conventional mar- ket developments could not proceed. Relatively modest public subsidies have provided a Cityscape 13
Brophy and Smith
location of high quality to households that would not otherwise have been able to afford the package offered by Emery Bay il. Market rents are as high as, or higher than, those of the competition and the project is performing well. The mixed-income nature of the project has in no way been a detriment to the leaseup of the market-rate units, although in today's market it is likely that the entire project could be readily leased on a market basis.
There is a waiting list for the most deeply subsidized units, indicating that the project is filling a need for high-quality housing for renters who ear less than 50 percent of me- dian income. But, because the tax-credit rents are higher than the Fair Market Rents used by the Section 8 program, certificate holders are not likely to be able to afford to live at Emery Bay Il.
Virtually all of the development's tenants are employed. Interaction among income groups is not a relevant concept at Emery Bay II, since the residents do not know which of their neighbors pay market-rate rents and which do not. For management, the certification Tent City, Boston, Massachusetts
Table 4
Income Mix: Tent City
Income Mix < 50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 46% 17% 30% 7%
Number of Units: 269, with modest commercial space
Placed in Service: 1988
Ownership: Nonprofit, community-based entity
Rent Range: $235-$2,100
* Area Median Income.
History. Tent City, a 269-unit mixed-income development in the heart of Boston, had its roots in citizen concerns about displacement and gentrification during the major redevel- opment of the city's South End and the redevelopment of Copley Plaza, a major hotel, office, and retail complex near the Prudential Center and the Public Garden. Residents fought to save a key site for a mixed-income development that would be responsive to the market needs of the area, while housing low- and moderate-income individuals and families. In 1968 advocates for affordable housing pitched tents on the current site. The Tent City development continues—in both its name and its goals—-the passion for mixed- income use of the site. After much controversy, negotiations, and complex financing, the project building was completed and occupied in 1988.
Physically, Tent City is a handsome development, serving as a transition from the com- mercial and business activities of Copley Plaza to the residential patterns of the South End. It consists of a highrise apartment building situated next to the Copley Place Mall 14 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
and an adjoining complex of townhouses that fit nicely into the texture of the South End.
The location is a major attraction for both market-rate and subsidized tenants. Jobs and universities throughout the Boston area can be accessed on foot or from the transit station located directly across the street.
Financially, the project uses a State operating subsidy program, annual payments from a UDAG income stream, Section 8 subsidies, and tax credits. The initial mix of incomes has been maintained: 25 percent very low income, 50 percent moderate income, and 25 percent market rate. The 134 moderate-income units consist of three tiers as well, due primarily to the need for some slightly higher rents.
Tenant Composition. Tent City's initial leasing drew 6,000 applicants for 202 subsidized units. Neighborhood residents who had been displaced by urban renewal and other former residents of the South End received priority. Current income and urgency of the appli- 6 months alive ratese a perei for market ahis, percent vor subsidied wils › months. Turnover rates-
are low compared with other market and mixed-income properties.
Like other centrally located properties in Boston, Tent City attracts large numbers of graduate students. Two-thirds of the development's market-rate units are occupied by graduate students living together and paying up to $2,100 per month in rent. Rents of the subsidized units range from $235 for a one-bedroom apartment to $793 for four ›edrooms. Approximately 25 percent of the lower income residents are on public assis tance. As at the other mixed-income projects investigated, few market-rate residents of Tent City have children. Approximately 180 children live in the subsidized units.
Despite their more graduated income scale, residents still seem to form two populations living side-by-side with little interaction. The market-rate renters seldom participate in activities related to the building or the neighborhood. For them, Tent City is simply an attractive, well-located, competitively priced place to live for a few years. While these tenants are aware of the development's mixed-income composition, it is not an important factor in their decision to live there. From the viewpoint of the subsidized renters, Tent City is a highly desirable place to live at a remarkable bargain in the heart of Boston.
Management confronts a number of ongoing issues. First, since the building's design did not adequately provide for trash disposal and removal, there is a recurring problem keep- ing the area clean around dumpsters. Second, developing recreational outlets for large numbers of children concentrated in a small site requires considerable energy and creativ- ity from management. The infrequent reports of friction between market-rate and subsi- dized tenants concern controlling noisy children, particularly during examination times for the resident students.
Tent City is owned and managed by nonprofit groups. In the early stages of project opera- ions, some owners were reluctant to evict tenants from subsidized units. However, ther low seems to be an agreement over the need to evict those in rent arrears or whose behav ior is outside the project's norms, or the project's financial and social survival may be threatened.
The project actively provides services for residents. Approximately $25,000 per year is allocated from the project's budget for community services activities. An after-school program is available for all children ages 7 to 14. An independently owned and operated daycare center on site provides a specified number of spaces for children of Tent City residents. The subsidized tenants have organized an active residents operations committee Cityscape 15
Brophy and Smith
that meets monthly with the management and the owners to discuss any problems in the project or to develop new ideas for project improvement. The owners employ a social service worker on the staff to help tenants with community, family, and personal needs.
Tent City is perceived to be safe, although it is not entirely a controlled-access site. The front doors of the townhouses face public streets. Access to the highrise building is with a card-entry system, and a desk clerk is on duty 24 hours a day. Few crimes have been reported in the complex.
Commentary. Like Harbor Point, Tent City is a very urban, mixed-income, mixed- ifestyle project. Income from the market-rate units supports some costs of the subsidizer units. Little is spent to market the market-rate units. Minimal interaction and neighborin occurs among the market-rate tenants or between them and the subsidized group.
Tent City demonstrates above all the old real estate adage that location is the most impor- ment spends more time on resident issues and involvement than is typical at most other Timberlawn Crescent, Montgomery County, Maryland
Table 5
Income Mix: Timberlawn Crescent
Income Mix <50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 29% 27% 7% 37%
Number of Units: 107
Placed in Service: 1989
Ownership: Public Housing Authority
Rent Range: $145-$1,200
* Area Median Income.
Source: Doerr and Siegel, 1990.
The oil, optic Coraid on thoro Morontor Cony Maryand is ousing for 30 years. Montgomery County, a relatively affluent suburb north of Washingtos .C., is easily accessible to the city and contains a number of high-growth job centers. Sinc the population in thing any has grov apedy er those 20 years including an increase been a major issue. This concern has provided a positive political climate for HOC's 16 Cityscape
Mixed-income Housing: Factors for Success
The project was well-designed and constructed; after 8 years of occupancy, it is very well naintained. Mature trees give the development a sense of seclusion and a connection with the natural environment, even though the area is heavily travelled. Rents from the market rate units subsidize the low- and moderate-income units without need for an additional operating subsidy. Rents range from a high of $1,200 per month for the most expensive market-rate units to a low of $145 per month for the smallest subsidized units—a factor of close to 10. The economics of the project work in part because HOC was able to acquire the land at tar below market value. While the cost of the land was estimated at more than $20,000 per unit, the site was acquired for less than $1,000 per unit. As a result, develop- ment costs were only $70,200 per unit, despite much higher typical costs in the area.
Tenant Composition. After hiring a professional firm to gauge the potential market for the project, HOC developed a plan for a four-tiered rent structure:
• 15 percent of the units designated for households below 30 percent of median county income.
• 15 percent for households with incomes below 60 percent of median. 20 percent for those below 75 percent of median.
• 50 percent at market rates, affordable to individuals or households with a minimum income of $42,000.
As with the other projects reviewed, there is no distinction between the quality of subsi- dized and market-rate units; the two are seamlessly intermeshed throughout the complex.
In fact, just over one-half of the units are currently rented to households with incomes below 60 percent of county median.
Demographically, Timberlawn is 59 percent white, 24 percent African-American, and 17 percent Hispanic, representing a significantly higher proportion of minorities than in the county as a whole. Overall, Montgomery County is 77 percent white, 12 percent Cityscape 17
Brophy and Smith
HOC made an important business decision early in the development of Timberlawn Crescent. Although HOC was managing 3,000 units of low-income housing, it chose to contract with a private management firm for this mixed-income development. The company is responsible for tenant screening and selection, lease enforcement, mainte- nance, and other aspects of property management. The company's on-site manager has benefitted from prior experience in running a market-rate development and maintaining the project attractively.
Timberlawn Crescent's garden-style, suburban setting, with outdoor patios and grills, seems conducive to socializing. Yet, as at the other projects surveyed, the level of neigh- boring is quite low. Discussions with residents indicate that few, if any, know their neigh- bors by name, and very little socialization occurs among residents. Yet, the feeling is not one of isolation, but more a general sense of busyness and activity that occurs in the lives of residents at both the subsidized and market levels.
Commentary. Timberlawn Crescent demonstrates that mixed-income projects can be developed and owned by a public body. It is necessary, however, for the officials to un- derstand market dynamics, value and employ competent management, be unconstrainec by preference rules in selecting tenants, and act as freely as a private owner in evicting tenants. HOC brought such a point of view to Timberlawn and its other mixed-income developments. The manager at Timberlawn has found that screening residents directly relates to the level of behavior problems at the project with both subsidized and market- rate tenants. A recurring management challenge is reducing noise and, again, problems caused by blaring stereos and loud parties do not seem restricted to a particular group.
Because subsidized and market-rate units are indistinguishable, management can flexibly adapt the subsidized units to changing circumstances. For example, one market-rate resi- dent who was laid off from his job, asked the management to help him work out a pay- ment plan for his rent. Because he came forward at a time when there was an opening for a subsidized unit and since he was unemployed, management was able to assist him in qualifying for a subsidized unit. Like most market-rate residents, this tenant was un- aware the development contained subsidized apartments.
The Residences at Ninth Square, New Haven, Connecticut
Table 6
Income Mix: The Residences at Ninth Square
Income Mix < 50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 26% 46% 9% 19%
Number of Units: 335 apartments, 50,000 square feet of retail/commercial space Placed in Service: 1994
Ownership: Two private, for-profit companies
Rent Range: $495-$1,140 per month
* Area Median Income.
18 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
History. Formerly a thriving light industrial and commercial center, the Ninth Square rea of New Haven declined after World War Il as city residents and businesses mover o the suburbs. The area is located near Yale University and a medical institution, with gassed for rev thiation. to higherays stems of seat 19 finate i for She leader eas oised for revitalization. However.
ani itse, mi tok come proles anders hanes or the square i site red in a historic compatible with the character of their surroundings.
Of the development's 335 residential units, 123 are located in the rehabilitated buildings, and the remainder are apartments in the new structures. Two parking garages and several has proved difficult to execute and much of the space remains unoccupied. While most of the current tenants are institution-oriented businesses, a brew-pub has recently signed a lease for part of this space and is expected to draw outsiders to the neighborhood.
Ninth Square is located three blocks from "The Green," two square blocks of park and green space in the heart of downtown New Haven. Yet the area continues to struggle to attract pedestrians and shoppers. Ninth Square's neighbor on its northeast border is Church Street, a renovated commercial district intended to revitalize the area. However, that goal has proved elusive; the retail district has been filled with adult bookstores and other commercial enterprises inconsistent with its objective or that of Ninth Square.
This development is set against the backdrop of a distressed economy. Between 1989 and 1992, New Haven lost an average of 23,000 jobs annually (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996). The downtown area suffered most, which par- tially explains the difficulty of leasing the commercial space, as well as the relatively slow rent-up of the market-rate residential units. Market conditions in New Haven stabilized somewhat in the last 2 years, especially in the middle and upper residential markets. By late 1996—after just 2 years of leasing—Ninth Square had achieved an occupancy rate of 96 percent.
Most of the public sector officials involved in the development of Ninth Square favored a fully market-rate rental structure. They wanted to avoid more subsidized housing in New laven and sought to maximize the potential buying power of market-rate renters to stimu late the local economy. Recognizing that these projections were unrealistic, the develope presented the case that only a mixed-income development would be feasible financially and that it could achieve the goal of revitalizing the area. At first, 20 percent of the units were dedicated to lower income tenants. As the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) was introduced, an additional 36 percent of the units were set aside for residents with incomes below 60 percent of median for New Haven metro areas. In the end, devel- opment costs totalled $86.6 million, yielding a cost of $258,000 per unit. Although this cost is high, it includes the commercial space and two garages.
Tenant Composition. Market rents in Ninth Square range from $550 per month for a studio apartment to $1,140 for a two-bedroom, two-bath unit. The subsidized rents for similar apartments start at $495 and rise to $768. A broad spread of incomes is repre- sented, from residents with no earned income to those earning $169,000 per year. The relatively high level of subsidized units does not appear to deter prospective market-rate tenants from leasing apartments. Although the largest units have just two bedrooms, Ninth Cityscape 19
Brophy and Smith
Square houses a large number of children—only one of whom lives in a market-rate unit.
The project's marginal location and the poor reputation of the public schools hold little appeal for prospective market-rate tenants who have children and an income that allows them to be selective.
bonuses. Section 8 certificate holders have been encouraged to apply; 16 percent of the The tenant-screening process at Ninth Square is rigorous. Management performs the standard background checks on credit, criminal record, and prior evictions for each appli- cant. In addition, it conducts a home visit of all prospects living within a 50-mile radius of the site. This requirement applies to both market-rate and subsidized applicants; how- ever, management may eliminate the home visit for market-rate renters since their rejec- tion rate is only 3 percent, compared with approximately 15 percent of applicants for the subsidized units. This intensive screening process has resulted in a low rate of eviction.
In 1996, evictions peaked at 15 during one month, all for failure to pay rent rather than for "cause."
Ninth Square's security system includes card-key access to all residential buildings and, for visitors, mandatory calls to residents from keypads at each door. Residents can view callers through a designated television channel. In addition, cameras monitor the lobby of each building, and a concierge is on duty throughout the night and most of the day.
Although management does not consider it a security position, the concierge monitors all who enter and leave the building, files incident reports with management, and reports any criminal activity to the police. While the concierge is not armed or authorized to ap- prehend suspects, he does patrol the property to discourage crime. Management consis- tently has demanded a timely response from local police to any calls in the neighborhood.
It also has relentlessly removed graffiti from the property, as well as from nearby build- ings. Management has obtained permission from adjacent building owners to clean their properties if necessary. This attention to detail has been critical in maintaining the development's curb appeal, particularly when the commercial space is partially vacant.
Commentary. Ninth Square management's approach to achieving the best tenant mix is a thorough screening of prospective renters to determine those who are likely to adhere to the project's rules and fit in with its culture and behavior patterns. The shared value of respect for one's self and for others seems critical. Since management does not feel re- sponsible for tackling each tenant's personal challenges, social services are not provided.
Instead, its efforts focus on enforcing the rules that provide a desirable environment. As with the other projects reviewed, neighboring among residents is limited. Management schedules some events to foster a sense of community, but they are sparsely attended, and the majority of attendees are residents of the subsidized units. However, informal resident interaction resulted in more than a social benefit in at least one instance. A low-income resident reported that after hearing about a job opening from an employed neighbor, she followed up on the tip and obtained a job interview.
Ninth Square demonstrates the risks involved in the market side of mixed-income devel- opment: the successful economic future of the project is not fully within the control of its owner and managers. They can produce a sterling building and a safe, attractive, place to live, but if the immediate area declines, the project will be affected as well. If the over- all economy of New Haven falls again, this project's market-rate units and commercial 20 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
space may suffer higher vacancies. Interestingly, these market risks have not affected the nixed-income nature of the project. It is apparent that management has been able to at ract a group of residents who can live together compatibly. The real issue for Nint? Square seems to be the condition of the surrounding area.
New Quality Hill, Kansas City, Missouri
Table 7
Income Mix: New Quality Hill
Income Mix < 50% AMI* 50-79% AMI 80-99% AMI > 100% AMI
Percent 12% 34% 11% 43%
Number of Units: 466 apartments, 30 condominiums, and 52,400 square feet of commercial space
Placed in Service: 1987
Ownership: Private, for-profit company
Rent Range: $410-$820 per month
* Area Median Income.
History. Development of the New Quality Hill has been a turning point for this historic positioned Quality Hill for a focused redevelopment effort.
Building on the investment of the Historical Society, the local business community large-scale revitalization effort. Its support for the project was demonstrated through pro. vision of $7.5 million in community development funds and an investment of approxi- historic structures with well-designed new buildings.
Quality Hill is bounded on three sides by the river, a bluff, and an interstate highway, creating an island effect that gives the neighborhood a clear sense of identity. Fifteen historic buildings were renovated in a six-block area, providing both housing and com- mercial space for two major nonprofit organizations: the YMCA and United Way. New construction provided an additional 171 apartments and townhouses that fill the gaps Where older buildings had been demolished and have revived the area's residential Cityscape 21
Brophy and Smith
character. Red-brick facades on the new structures recall the area's earlier look. Street- scape amenities add charm, with decorative street lights, brickwork, and monuments to mark the main entry points into the neighborhood.
Applying the same design criteria, the owners transformed three sites adjacent to the Phase 1 area. This Phase II project included the renovation of a dilapidated historic building into 34 housing units and the construction of 99 new apartments. Since the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program was used as a source of equity funding, all of these units were restricted to residents with incomes below 60 percent of area median income. Total develop- ment costs for both phases were approximately $69 million, or $148,000 per unit, Kansas City's economy is thriving. Jobs increased by 26,000 in the metropolitan area between 1995 and 1996. The apartment market is active, with only a 5-percent vacancy rate. While more multifamily housing is under construction, continuing job growth is likely to keep pace, thereby holding the overall vacancy rate at about its current level. Quality Hill's vacancy Given the area's problems in the 1970s and 1980s, the major question facing the owners was whether Quality Hill could attract market-rate clientele. The developer sought to produce the highest possible quality while still pricing the units and amenities (including several amenities not commonly found elsewhere in Kansas City) at a level considered attractive to prospective residents. Each unit has a washer and dryer, dishwasher, cable But location is the project's key asset. When residents were surveyed about their reasons for settling in Quality Hill, 60 percent of respondents gave location as the primary factor.
Appearance, design, and quality rated a distant second, at 20 percent.
Tenant Composition. The typical Quality Hill tenant is between 25 and 35 years of age, single, and white. There are very few children in the project; 65 percent of the units have only one occupant. This is the ratio anticipated by the project's design, which does not include private yard space, and its marketing, aimed at single professionals rather than families. The project is more racially integrated than is typical for most Kansas City neighborhoods. White-collar workers make up more than 75 percent of the residents, with managers and professionals dominant. Five percent are artists, giving the community a somewhat trendy, urban character. Household incomes range widely, from $1,900 to $180,000 annually. As with Emery Bay II, no certificate holders currently reside at Quality Hill, because tax-credit rents are higher than those under the Section 8 Fair Market Rent program.
Quality Hill residents describe the community as friendly, although there is not a great deal of neighboring. While some informal barbecues are held in warm weather, neither residents nor management makes much of an effort to plan these or other neighboring activities. Lacking any crises to deal with, there seems to be no incentive to form a resi- dent association. Security, however, is sometimes an issue. Although the crime rate in Quality Hill is lower than that in many other parts of the city, there is a perception that the level of crime is high. All multifamily buildings have a secured entrance, and each townhouse has an alarm system. An armed security guard patrols the area during the evening. Women tenants interviewed said that while they feel very comfortable in the neighborhood, they do not go out alone at night.
Commentary. The large scale of Quality Hill places it almost in the category of a neigh- borhood revitalization effort, rather than simply a mixed-income, multifamily project. 22 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
The development conveys to visitors and residents the overall impression of a revitalized historic neighborhood. It succeeds in part because of its excellent design and convenient location. Its success is also attributable to careful maintenance and a management that screens prospective residents to determine their adaptability to the project's culture.
Management's attention to security arrangements, the orientation of new residents to the development, its surroundings, and firm enforcement of the project's rules all seem criti- cal to Quality Hill's ongoing viability.
The private and government partners involved with the developers in creating Quality fill have succeeded beyond their expectations. Like Ninth Square, Harbor Point, anc success is the overall health of the housing market and the city's general economy. Kan- sas City has thrived during the past several years, and Quality Hill has benefitted from that economic strength.
The public funds in the partnership have helped Quality Hill to gain a market edge. The developments located in areas with a history of distress. This developer is applying the same principles to similar projects in other inner cities: Crawford Square in Pittsburgh and the renovations of Residences at Murphy Park in St. Louis and Centennial Place in Atlanta.
Defining a Research and Learning Agenda for
Mixed-Income Housing
Understanding the composition of successful mixed-income projects requires an ability to articulate the goal for each development and for mixed-income housing in general. Each evelopment surveyed started with a different set of problems and definition of success n their own terms, they are generally considered successful by their owners, resident:
na outside stakenolders. In broader public policy terms, these projects indicate that if th oal of mixed-income housing involves positive outcomes—including upward mobility- for the low-income population, more is needed than merely bringing together people of different incomes in one physical location.
Clear goal statements about what is expected by mixed-income developments, of course, are necessary to judge their success. In their examination of Lake Parc Place, a mixed- income public housing development in Chicago, Rosenbaum et al. observe that two goals clearly have been reached: Lake Parc has created a mixed-income population and has well-managed buildings. Yet the project has failed to achieve other goals: employ- ment has not increased, and public safety is still a problem.
The projects surveyed and the literature reviewed for this study point to a number of lessons and hypotheses for further research on mixed-income housing.
1. Mixed-income housing works best when it emphasizes the basics of real estate development and management.
It is impossible to talk about successful mixed-income development and ownership with- out emphasizing the fundamentals of real estate development and management.
Location. Each of the projects surveyed is situated in a strong market area that holds the potential of attracting renters who can afford to make choices. In some locations, such Cityscape 23
Brophy and Smith
as Harbor Point, Quality Hill, and Ninth Square, the market was untested because a market-rate product had not been offered in that location or a similar one. Still, the overall market dynamics seemed favorable for projects with a high level of quality. In such situa- tions, the developer often creates a market for the product-an approach that is more difficult and more risky than entering an existing market. However, these three projects have several assets in common. They are all bounded either by natural or manmade fea- tures: a bluff, water, railroads, and highways. These boundaries enable the developments to create new communities without confronting the problems of surrounding neighbor- hoods. In addition, these developments typically offer a housing bargain to their residents, at least during lease-up and for the first few years of operation. These developments also have been produced on a scale large enough to create a market, or neighborhood, with its own distinctive character, an accomplishment that would be extremely difficult with a onc- or two-building development.
These three projects are attracting many new residents as a result of their proximity to growing employment centers and universities. This provides a pool of young market-rate renters, who lack preconceived notions about these formerly blighted areas and biases against living there. A previously distressed neighborhood not experiencing this type of in-migration might have difficulty building a market.
Design quality. The development's overall design and configuration are also critical to its success. All of the projects surveyed are distinguished by superior design, from their siting to the detailed finishes that contribute to their appeal to both market-rate and subsidized Excellent management and maintenance. All of the projects reviewed are profession- ally managed. Each manager has a firm and clear set of rules for the development that are enforced routinely and quickly. Strong management is critical to building a shared culture within the development. With rare exceptions, the physical structures of these projects are kept in top condition. Grass is trimmed, common areas are attractive, and maintenance requests are handled promptly and courteously. A great deal of attention is paid to secu- rity measures by front desk staff, security guards, or electronic surveillance. Safety, secu- rity, attractive maintenance, and noise control are all indications of excellent management in mixed-income housing.
The need for new developers to understand and follow these basic rules is one of the main challenges to the growth of mixed-income housing. Public housing authorities that move into mixed-income development may need to overcome years of weak management and entering new markets with developments of high quality.
From a research perspective, more analysis of the attributes of successful management, the way to create a common culture in a development, and the ways that culture can con- ect the residents are critically important to building a cadre of managers capable of mar ging mixed-income developments successfull-
inancial viability. Each project required a great deal of time in the predevelopmer rocess in order to secure financing from a range of sources and ensure the project's lons term viability. Without sufficient funds to market the project, maintain it scrupulously well, weather the inevitable downturns in the residential real estate market, and provide 24 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
the subsidies needed to continue to house the lower income residents, mixed-income housing developments are likely to fail. Determining the levels of reserves needed to accomplish these objectives must evolve as the number of mixed-income developments The relationship between tax-credit-eligible rents and Section 8 certificate rent ceilings is olders is an important feature of an income-mixing strategy, particularly in a regulatory invironment in which owners can be more selective about the number of Section 8 certifi cate holders they will accept.
2. Where the goal of mixed-income housing is upward mobility of the low-income residents, more than income-mixing and good management is needed
These developments provide clear evidence that it is possible to create mixed-income to be insignificant. It cannot be assumed that the simple act of creating a successful mix of incomes will affect the likelihood of employment or the chances for upward mobility.
Rosenbaum et al. report that 3 years after Lake Parc became a mixed-income develop- ment, employment actually declined (Rosenbaum et al., 1996).
In examining the mobility at projects managed by community development corporations nection between job development and upward mobility.
From a policy development perspective, if HUD seeks to use its public or FHA-financed projects—in their current form, or transformed into mixed-income developments—as vehicles for upward mobility of low-income tenants, the appropriate roles and incentives offered to owners and managers to accomplish this mission should be tested in demon- stration settings.
3. Mixed-income housing will work only where there are sufficient units aimed at the higher income population to create a critical mass.
We know virtually nothing about the optimal combination of incomes needed for success- ful mixed-income housing. In each project surveyed, the developer's determination of the Quality Hill). Nationally, we have seen Federal programs that permit a ratio of 80 percent Cityscape 25
Brophy and Smith
Credit program also has provided guidelines for the income mix permitted, but many developments that take advantage of this program produce 100-percent subsidized units.
Generally, developers who choose to mix income groups try to avoid the mistake of overloading a project with low-income households and jeopardizing the marketability of higher priced units. But there may be circumstances that warrant a more aggressive balance of incomes, such as very strong markets or active student markets. Given the concern for increasing eligibility of public-housing households in mixed-income develop- ments, some of the HOPE VI mixed-income proposals have been more aggressive in trying to increase the numbers of very low-income households. Research is needed to determine the correlation between market strength and unit mix.
Another critical dimension of the optimal tenant mixture relates to racial and class issues.
More research is needed to address the effect of these factors on the ability of subsidized residents to move toward self-sufficiency. Is it important that the various income levels have similar racial demographics? Is it more beneficial to have a moderate income tier to bridge the gap between the low-income and market-rate tenants? While it might be assumed that such a tier would provide more harmony among residents, a longitudinal study could help determine the most effective means to increasing upward mobility for subsidized renters.
4. Mixed-income housing works best when the income mix is not emphasized in marketing and there are no differences in the nature and quality of units being offered.
In all of the developments surveyed, the management and leasing staff disclose, but do not emphasize, to market-rate prospects the mixed-income nature of the project. As with the selling of any consumer good, emphasis is placed on the particular features that are most likely to appeal to prospective renters. Subsidized and market-rate units are gener- ally indistinguishable, and the location of a unit gives no indication of whether or not it is subsidized. This full integration also has an important positive effect on the overall functioning of the developments.
In the ongoing design and financing of mixed-income projects, it will be important to learn more about the optimal physical layout of the development. If, as is the case in these developments, subsidized units usually go to families with children, there is a need for units with varying numbers of bedrooms in each building. On the marketing side, a detailed analysis will be required to find out the best way to present units, particularly in those settings in which troubled public housing or subsidized development is being replaced or renovated and reconfigured.
5. Successful income integration in a neighborhood setting is more difficult than in a housing project context.
26 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
complaints from neighborhood leaders about the difficulty of persuading some Section 8 residents to conform to neighborhood norms provides an indication of the complex bal- ance between individual rights and neighborhood behavior patterns—-an undertaking that is far more difficult in such settings than in the projects reviewed here.
6. Mixed-income housing may be more difficult to manage when there is a dichotomy between the subsidized and market-rate renters, rather than a gradual climb represented by moderate- income tiers.
The higher rent projects reviewed in this study—Timberlawn Crescent, Quality Hill, i all residents. Perhaps because of this balance, management reports minimal tension o onflict between market-rate renters and those on public assistance. This ratio may reflec the extremes.
The other two projects that combine market-rate and very low-income renters-Ninth Square and Harbor Point-lack an intentional moderate-income tier. And both seem to be faced with a clash of lifestyles between the residents at either end of the income range.
The clash seems more pronounced at Harbor Point, for several possible reasons. First, Harbor Point has a larger population on public assistance than the Residences at Ninth Table 8
Income Differences Among Renters at Ninth Square and Harbor Point Development Market-Rate Subsidized Difference
Median Income Median Income
Ninth Square* $38,059 $20,280 $17,779
Harbor Point* $41,000 $10,000 $31,000
* Income statistics for residents were provided by the property management company.
Second, the difference in incomes is greater at Harbor Point. As seen in table 8, the A third factor to consider is the number and ages of children in each development.
Approximately 25 percent of the units at Harbor Point and Ninth Square house one or more children. However, this percentage represents only 80 households at Ninth Square, whereas the number at Harbor Point is more than 300. In addition, most of the childre at Ninth Square are preadolescent, while about one-half of those at Harbor Point ar between ages 11 and 18. The larger number of teenagers and their tendency to present Cityscape 27
Brophy and Smith
problems is an ongoing issue for the management at Harbor Point. Complaints range from excessive noise and vandalism to the larger issues of drugs and violence. These problems are often found in upper income communities as well. However, since most of the chil- dren and teenagers come from the subsidized households within these mixed-income communities, normal tensions that tend to arise from the activities of children may exac- erbate the friction between the two income groups.
7. In the financing of mixed-income housing, the implicit subsidi- zation may work to make units affordable or to make a mixed- income project feasible from a market perspective, depending on market circumstances.
In three of the projects reviewed-Emery Bay II, Ninth Square, and Quality Hill-the decision to include public subsidies and below-market rents and income levels was largely due to a weak housing market. The developers and their partners confronted th hallenge of obtaining sufficient subsidies and below-market residents so that the projec would be financially feasible without changing its market-rate character. In these in- stances it is fair to say that the subsidy from the below-market rate units allowed the market-rate units to proceed.
At Timberlawn Crescent, the situation was quite different. In this case, the Housing Op- portunity Commission took advantage of a low acquisition price combined with market- rate rents in a strong area. Its astute development and the competitive market produced an internal project subsidy that supports affordable rents for low- and moderate-income fami- lies. In Harbor Point and Tent City, on the other hand, the Federal subsidies enabled the developments to set aside units for low-income households while also providing a hous- ing bargain that would attract market-rate tenants.
The critical factor in financing such projects is that the developer and the funding partners clarity the mixed-income objectives. When the public sector that is providing subsidies as a goal of mixed-income housing, the use of project-based capital or operating subsi lies can help to achieve that mix. Perhaps more challenging, however, is understanding and capitalizing on the conditions in which the strength of the market can support more affordable units through cross-subsidization from market-rate to low-income units.
Summary
A great deal still remains to be learned about the factors that lead to a successful mixed- income project. This brief survey of seven mixed-income developments indicates that if the definition of success is a group of people representing various income categories located, weth designed, and fectively man agar goal the project must be conveniently However, if success is defined in broader terms and includes the upward mobility of 28 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
Authors
Paul C. Brophy is principal of Paul C. Brophy & Associates, a Maryland-based firm working with government, for-profit, and nonprofit clients on neighborhood revitalization, mixed-income housing, and neighborhood economic development. He has specialized in crafting partnerships and creative financing for complex housing and neighborhood improvement programs and recenily has been an active participant in the implementation of the HOPE VI program at HUD and in a number of cities.
Rhonda N. Smith completed a Master of Public Management and an M.B.A. with a focus on affordable housing finance. She is currently working with Recapitalization Advisors, Inc., a Boston-based firm specializing in the finance of existing affordable housing. Prior 10 joining Recap Advisors, Rhonda worked in underwriting and acquisitions for an investor in low-income housing tax credits.
The authors are grateful to Jill Khadduri, director of HUD's Division of Policy Develop- ment, for her in-depth assistance in guiding this effort.
Notes
1. Public Law 102-389, approved October 6, 1992.
2. Using the mark-to-market approach, the value of real estate, stocks, and other assets is set at its current market value rather than its initial purchase price; that value may be either higher or lower than the initial price. (This approach is commonly used by homeowners to express the value of their dwellings.) Project-based Section 8 rents in FHA-insured housing are often higher than market-rate rents for comparable units.
To lower future Section 8 subsidies, HUD proposes to reduce the mortgages on these properties to an amount that can be supported by market-rate rents.
3. See references for pertinent literature. James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University has done the most extensive research into the effectiveness of mixed-income housing with regard to improving the self-sufficiency of low-income individuals.
4. Interview with Marty Jones, President, Corcoran Jennison, October 29, 1996.
5. Generalizations made in this article about mixed-income developments, whose units are controlled by a single owner, should not be applied to mixed-income neighbor- hoods or towns, where ownership is more diverse and management's influence over behavior patterns is far more limited.
6. We are grateful to the individuals who agreed to be interviewed, particularly the primary contact person at each site: Harbor Point, Marty Jones; Timberlawn Cres- cent, Richard Ferrara; Tent City, Louise Elving and Pat Clancy; Emery Bay Club and Apartments, Carol Gallante; The Residences at Ninth Square and New Quality Hill, Richard Baron and Barbara Jarrett; Jones Family Apartments, Jane Graf. - Finch development, co i unity prics, any pfenergieneue have resisted the lin, lancing creativil
tation to tell the stories here, but have referred to other descriptions when they are available.
Cityscape 29
Brophy and Smith
8. The telephone survey that led to the selection of the developments, as well as the review of projects cited in the literature, was an indication of the limited number of mixed-income developments that professionals in the low- and moderate-income housing field could identify.
9. William Julius Wilson's The Truly Disadvantaged makes this point clearly.
10. See Schwartz and Tajbakhsh in this issue for a summary of the literature making these arguments.
11. See Rosenbaum (1991) for an analysis of the differences in economic success be- tween Chicago-area residents who used Section 8 certificates to move to suburbs and those who chose to remain in the central city.
12. See Putnam (1995). In 1974, 72 percent of those surveyed in the General Social Survey said they spent a social evening with a neighbor at least once a year. By 1995, this figure had declined to 61 percent.
13. See Varady and Lipman (1994). Two-thirds of renters surveyed by the National ssociation of Realtors stated that they would like to buy a home. The one-third wh eported a preference for renting include elderly tenants and lifestyle renters, whe prefer the greater flexibility and reduced commitment associated with renting
14. "Households" rather than "families" must be used to describe the occupants of these units and those in the other projects studied. Many of the units are occupied by two or more unrelated individuals for cost-sharing purposes.
15. This unit is rented to a resident who qualified initially under the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and who does not have to leave now that his income has increased.
16. Again, as in the computation for Ninth Square, this figure includes the cost of the commercial space.
17. Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn (1996) present a case study of Lake Parc Place, a 282-unit project owned by the Chicago Housing Authority. Half of the units are restricted to middle-income families in the 50-80 percent of median category.
The other half have residents who are below 50 percent of median.
18. Kasarda (1993) documents the increased concentration of the urban poor.
19. The Randolph neighborhood in Richmond may be an example of a deliberately planned mixed-income neighborhood that has different ownership and management.
See Gentry (1993).
References
Charos, He Demanis, "Timecy Cryegie, Vol. I, No. Charting a New Course in " Citvscape, Vol. 1, No. 3.
Doerr, Tom, and Joyce Siegel. 1990. "Mixing Incomes at Timberlawn Crescent," Urban Land, April, pp. 8-11.
30 Cityscape
Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success
Gallese, Liz Roman. 1974. "Living Together: Massachusetts Tries Mixing Income Groups in Subsidized Housing," Wall Street Journal, June 25, p. 1.
Gentry, Richard C. 1993. "The Rebirth of Randolph," Journal of Housing, January- February, pp. 45ff.
Hoffman, Morton. 1995. "Mixed-Income Housing: A New Direction in State and Federal Programs, " Real Estate Issues, August, pp. 40-45.
Kasarda, John. 1993. "Inner-City Concentrated Poverty and Neighborhood Distress:
1970-1990." Housing Policy Debate (4)3.
North of Market Planning Coalition. 1992. Tenderloin 2000 Survey and Plan: Final Re- port. San Francisco, CA.
Rosenbaum, James E. 1991. "Black Pioneers—Do Their Moves to the Suburbs Increase Economic Opportunity for Mothers and Children?" Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 1179-1213.
Rosenbaum, James E., Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy Flynn. 1996. "Lake Parc Place: A Study of the First Four Years of a Mixed-Income Housing Program." Unpublished manuscript, April 3.
Ryan, William, Allen Sloan, Mania Seferi, and Elaine Werby. 1974. All in Together: An Evaluation of Mixed-Income Multi-Family Housing. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency.
Schubert, Michael F., and Alison Thresher. 1996. Lessons from the Field: Three Case Studies of Mixed-Income Housing Development. Chicago, IL: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Schwartz, Alex, and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1996. "Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Ques- tions." Presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, July 1996. New York, NY: Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, New School for Social Research (work in progress).
Sullivan, Mercer L. and Elizabeth J. Mueller. 1994. "Social Impacts of Community Development Corporations, Research Findings, Phase Two." U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1995. HUD Reinvention:
From Blueprint to Action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 1996. U.S. Housing Market Conditions, August. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development.
Varady, David P., and Barbara J. Lipman. 1994. "What Are Renters Really Like? Results from a National Survey," Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 491-531.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cityscape 31
W EMPIRE AVE Cuningham
COMPLETELY
DEMOLISHED
APN: 2464-001-007 FIRE ACCESS LANE FIRE ACCESS LANE
APN: 2464-001-913
PRELINARY NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Site Plan - 2814 W Empire
A5.C
CITY OF
BURBANK
065018
LOMR 11-09-3187P
eft. 6/28/2012
06037C13297
cf0/26/2008
Zone AB
JEsni, USDA Farm Service Agensy