DOCSLIB.ORG

CALIFORNIA TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE 2010 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CALIFORNIA TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE 2010 Annual Report CALIFORNIA TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE 2010 Annual Report Bill Lockyer Treasurer State of California CALIFORNIA TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE 2010 Annual Report Report on the Allocation of Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credits in California April 2011 The State Treasurer’s Office and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need additional information or assistance, please contact the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee at (916) 654-6340 or TDD (916) 654-9922. CALIFORNIA TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE Voting Committee Members: Bill Lockyer, Chair State Treasurer Ana J. Matosantos, Director of Finance John Chiang, State Controller Advisory Committee Members: L. Steven Spears, Executive Director California Housing Finance Agency Cathy E. Creswell, Acting Director Department of Housing and Community Development Christopher Armenta City Representative David Rutledge County Representative Committee Staff: William J. Pavão, Executive Director Lisa Vergolini, Deputy Executive Director Rose Guerrero, Chief Compliance Section Ammer Singh, Compliance Manager Shannon Nardinelli, Compliance Manager Ed Johnson, Development Program Manager (Specialist) Anthony Zeto, Development Program Manager Tiffani Armstrong Quang Le Angel Barragan John Lee Stephen Bellotti Mayra Lozano Phyllis Blanton Kelly Luu Generoso Deguzman David Navarrette Carol Douglas Connie Osorio Gina Ferguson Georgene Palmerin Velia Greenwood Adam Sartain Elizabeth Gutierrez Benjamin Schwartz Frank Harper Kole Tefft Diana Hester Nicole Valenzuela Nicola Hil Jack Waegell Noemy Iniguez Biu Wong Elaine Johnson Carl Yeager TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 2010 Program Highlights 1 I. RESULTS OF THE 2010 PROGRAM 3 II. KEY EVENTS DURING 2010 12 III. CUMULATIVE PROGRAM RESULTS: 1987 - 2010 20 IV. MONITORING – PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM COMPLIANCE 30 APPENDICES 33 A. 2010 9% PROGRAM ALLOCATION INFORMATION B. 2010 4% PROGRAM ALLOCATION INFORMATION C. 1987 – 2010 COMPLIANCE REPORT D. PROGRAM COSTS, CREDITS AND UNIT PRODUCTION TRENDS E. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 2010 Program Highlights Tax Credit Units in California Exceed 264,000 In 2010, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“TCAC” or “the Committee”) awarded $79.9 million in competitive nine percent (9%) annual federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTCs”) to 75 proposed housing projects. In addition, TCAC awarded $31.3 million in state tax credits to 14 competitive 9% projects, and $22.9 million in state credit to eight projects receiving four percent (4%) tax credits with tax-exempt bonds. Recipients will develop a total of 4,170 affordable housing units using 2010 nine percent tax credit awards, bringing California’s total since the program’s inception in 1987 to 117,120 units. Including tax-exempt bond financed projects (“4%” projects), TCAC has assisted 264,100 total affordable units with tax credits since the program’s inception. Demand for 9% Tax Credits Applicants submitted a total of 272 applications for competitive 9% tax credits in 2010 (compared to 241 in 2009) with 75 projects, or 27.5%, receiving a tax credit allocation. The demand for 9% tax credits in 2010 was higher than in 2009, when 33% of all applications received credit allocations. The total annual federal 9% tax credit requested in 2010 was $306.6 million,1 while the amount available to allocate was nearly $79.9 million, 26% of the requested amount. Geographic Apportionments Affect Credit Distribution In 1997 the Committee created geographic apportionments, and updated them in 2004 to align the distribution of tax credits with statewide population and housing needs. The 2004 geographic percentages were assigned to 10 areas by a formula incorporating population, housing costs, poverty and urbanization. The target percentages establish the credits available to each area after funding the non-profit, rural, small development, at-risk, special needs/SRO, and supplemental set-asides. 1 Table 1 below shows federal and state tax credit distribution in relation to target geographic apportionments of federal and state credit allocated by formula. This data includes only those projects receiving funding from the geographic apportionments, and does not include projects funded in these geographic regions under the set-asides; for discussion of the program’s set- asides, please refer to page 8. The Target Apportionment of Table 1 does not account for prior years’ results and their effect on available tax credit in 2010. That is, those areas receiving more credits than they were apportioned in 2009 had their 2010 apportionments discounted by the overage amount. The Allocation Percentages shown below, however, do reflect these discounts. Table 1 2010 Federal and State Apportionments versus Allocations Target Allocation Allocation Geographic Area Apportionment Percentage Amount Los Angeles County 33% 36.36% $180,120,870 Central Region 10% 7.12% $35,276,050 North and East Bay Region 10% 9.18% $45,472,670 San Diego County 10% 8.36% $41,385,607 Inland Empire Region 8% 8.59% $42,546,180 Orange County 8% 6.43% $31,830,810 South and West Bay Region 6% 5.72% $28,320,306 Capital and Northern Region 6% 6.35% $31,448,190 Central Coast Region 5% 6.17% $30,583,990 San Francisco County 4% 5.72% $28,349,110 TOTAL 100% 100.00% $495,333,783 Decrease in the Number of Projects Financed with Tax-exempt Bonds In 2010 the Committee received 53 applications for projects financed with tax-exempt bond proceeds (4%) and reserved tax credits for 49 projects, a 26% decrease from the 72 projects reserving tax credits in 2009. This decrease continued a downward trend in 4% applications that began in 2009 (72 in 2009, 161 in 2008, 124 in 2007, and 128 in 2006). The 49 projects received $33,596,704 in annual federal tax credit and will produce 4,481 low-income units. Of the 49 projects awarded 4% federal tax credits in 2010, eight also received allocations of state credits totaling $22,964,367.2 While the awarded federal credit amount decreased by 22.7% 1 This amount includes second round reapplications. 2 Tax-exempt bond applicants requesting both federal and state tax credit for a project must apply for state credit through the credit ceiling competition. The federal tax credit awards for these projects are not made from the federal credit ceiling. 2 from 2009 to 2010, the total proposed low-income units decreased somewhat less (14.4%), reflecting a higher average project size in 2010. In 2010, the average federal award for 4% projects was $685,647 ($679,483 in 2009) and the average project size was 91 affordable units (82 in 2009). Monitoring Activities In 2010, the Committee monitored 763 tax credit projects to fulfill the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirement that all completed tax credit developments be inspected at least once every three years. Monitoring activities included site inspection visits to review files and physically inspect the units and common areas. Committee staff inspected at least 20% of the files and units at each development. Of the 763 developments inspected, 702 or 92% had some incident of non- compliance, the large majority of which were promptly remedied. Only 102, or 13% of the developments had at least one incident of non-compliance that was reportable to the IRS. In most cases the non-compliance was due to over-charging rents, inadequately documenting files, or failing to perform timely income re-certifications. Of the 13,014 tenant files inspected, 12,941 or 99.4% were found in compliance with income restriction requirements. In cases where excessive rent was charged, all residents who were able to be located received refunds. RESULTS OF THE 2010 PROGRAM Section 50199.15(a) of the California Health and Safety Code requires the Committee to submit an annual report of the prior year’s activities to the Legislature. The statute specifically requires the Committee to report information as follows: • the total amount of housing credit allocated; • the total number of low-income units that are, or will be, assisted by the credit; • the amount of credit allocated to each project, other financing available to the project, and the number of units that are, or will be, assisted by the credit; and • sufficient information to identify the projects. The report must also describe the status of units reserved for low-income occupancy from projects receiving allocations in previous years. Appendices A, B and C of this report contain data for 2010 and earlier program years. Appendix D contains several charts illustrating recent 3 cost, credit allocation and unit production trends. Appendix E contains a summary description of the tax credit programs. Tables 1 through 4 of Appendices A and B provide summary listings by County, Assembly District, Senate District and Congressional District of all 2010 projects allocated tax credit. The 2010 federal 9% tax credits assisted 75 projects in 27 Counties, 47 Assembly Districts, 35 Senate Districts and 42 Congressional Districts. Of those projects, state tax credits assisted 14 projects in 12 Counties, 13 Assembly Districts, 12 Senate Districts and 12 Congressional Districts. The 9% Program In 2010, the per capita annual federal tax credit ceiling was $77,619,494. Subtracting $4,411,317 in annual credit the Committee pre-committed in 2009 from the 2010 credit ceiling results in $73,208,177 ($732,081,770 of federal credit available to investors over a ten-year period). In addition, $6,678,278 in net annual federal tax credit was returned to the Committee during the year, resulting in a total of $79,886,455 in annual federal credit available for allocation. As there was no “national pool” at the federal level in 2010, no additional credits were obtained from this source. National pool credits are unused tax credits from other states that are divided among states that have allocated all their credit in the preceding year. California’s annual federal tax credit allocated in 2010 was $79,964,641, or $799,646,410 in total federal tax credit available to investors over a ten-year period.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Senior Resource Guide
    SENIOR RESOURCE GUIDE Non-Profit and Public Agencies Serving NORTH ALAMEDA COUNTY Alameda ● Albany ● Berkeley ● Emeryville ● Oakland ● Piedmont Senior Information & Assistance Program – Alameda County Area Agency on Aging 6955 Foothill Blvd, Suite 143 (1st Floor), Oakland, CA 94605; 1-800-510-2020 / 510-577-3530; http://seniorinfo.acgov.org Office Hours : 8:30am – 4pm Monday – Friday ADULT DAY CARE/RESPITE (useful website: www.daybreakcenters.org): Alzheimer's Services of the East Bay - ASEB, Berkeley, www.aseb.org .................................................................................................................................... 510-644-8292 Bay Area Community Services - BACS, Oakland, http://bayareacs.org ................................................................................................................................... 510-601-1074 Centers for Elders Independence - CEI, (PACE - Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly); www.cei.elders.org ..................................................... 844-319-1150 DayBreak Adult Care Centers, (personalized referrals & community education); http://daybreakcenters.org ................................................................ 510-834-8314 Hong Fook Adult Day Health Care, Oakland, (14th Street site); www.fambridges.org ........................................................................................................ 510-839-9673 Hong Fook Adult Day Health Care, Oakland, (Harrison Street site); www.fambridges.org ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CLASSIC JAZZ This Page Intentionally Left Blank CLASSIC JAZZ
    CLASSIC JAZZ This page intentionally left blank CLASSIC JAZZ A Personal View of the Music and the Musicians FLOYD LEVIN Foreword by BENNY CARTER UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London Title page illustration: The author and his wife, Lucille—Emperor and Empress of the 1985 Jazz Jubilee, Sacramento, California. Unless otherwise credited, all illustrations are by the author or are from his collection. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2000 by the Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Levin, Floyd. Classic jazz : a personal view of the music and the musicians / Floyd Levin. p. cm. Includes index. isbn 0-520-21360-2 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Jazz—History and criticism. 2. Jazz musi- cians—United States. I. Title. ml3508.l48 2000 781.65—dc21 00-022554 Manufactured in the United States of America 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 10987654321 The paper used in this publication meets the mini- mum requirements of ansi/niso z39.48-1992 (r 1997) (Permanence of Paper). To Lucille, my loving wife and perceptive editor, who shared these wonderful experiences with me. Her sincere praises buoyed my efforts, and her unerring criticisms deftly improved my narration. This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS FOREWORD BY BENNY CARTER xv PREFACE xvii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxiii INTRODUCTION 1 1 KID ORY AND THE REVIVAL ERA 9 Kid Ory / 11 Kid Ory’s Legendary 1921 Nordskog/Sunshine Recordings / 14 Papa Mutt Carey
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Historic Preservation in Blighted Areas: Effects of the Abolishment of Redevelopment Agencies in California
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2012 The Future of Historic Preservation in Blighted Areas: Effects of the Abolishment of Redevelopment Agencies in California Lauro Alonso Parra University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Parra, Lauro Alonso, "The Future of Historic Preservation in Blighted Areas: Effects of the Abolishment of Redevelopment Agencies in California" (2012). Theses (Historic Preservation). 204. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/204 Suggested Citation: Parra, Lauro Alonso (2012). The Future of Historic Preservation in Blighted Areas: Effects of the Abolishment of Redevelopment Agencies in California. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/204 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Future of Historic Preservation in Blighted Areas: Effects of the Abolishment of Redevelopment Agencies in California Abstract Redevelopment agencies play a major role in the preservation or destruction of historic buildings. When considering the benefits of preservation, we not only consider the protection of buildings for history's sake; but its usage has become more evident as a form of economic growth. During 2011, in efforts to balance the budget in the state of California, Governor Brown proposed abolishing
    [Show full text]
  • Form 990-PF Return of Private Foundation
    0 0 Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990-PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust Department of the Treasury Treated as a Private Foundation Internal Revenue Service 2008 Note. The foundation may be able to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting requirements. For calendar year 2008 , or tax year beginning , and ending G Check all that apply Initial return Final return Amended return L_J Address change Name change A Employer identification number Use the IRS Name of foundation label. Otherwise, HARLES STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION 38-1211227 print Number and street (or P 0 box number if mail is not delivered to street address ) Room/su to B Telephone number or type . 03 S. SAGINAW STREET 200 (810) 238-5651 See Specific City or town, state, and ZIP code C If exemption application is pending, check here Instructions . ► LINT MI 48502-1851 D 11.Foreign organizations, check here • 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test. H Check typea of organization: XSection 501 (c)(3) exempt private foundation check here and attach computation = Section 4947(a)( 1 ) nonexemp t charitable trus t 0 Other taxable private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated I Fair market value of all assets at end of year J Accounting method: L_J Cash X Accrua l under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here (from Part ll, col (c), line 16) 0 Other (specify) F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination 1 933 , 369 747. (Part 1, column (d) must be on cash basis) under section 507(b)(1)(B), check here Part I Analysis of Revenue and Expenses (a) Revenue and (b) Net investment (c) Adjusted net (d) Disbursements (The total of amounts in columns ( b), (c), and (d) may not for charitable purposes necessarily equal the amounts in column (a) ex p enses p er books income income (cash basis only) 1 Contributions, gifts, grants, etc., received 2 Check it the foundation is not required to attach Sch B on savings and temporary 3 , 460 , 484.
    [Show full text]
  • John Valadez Interviewed by Karen Mary Davalos on November 19 and 21, and December 3, 7, and 12, 2007
    CSRC ORAL HISTORIES SERIES NO. 10, DECEMBER 2013 JOHN VALADEZ INTERVIEWED BY KAREN MARY DAVALOS ON NOVEMBER 19 AND 21, AND DECEMBER 3, 7, AND 12, 2007 John Valadez is a painter and muralist. A graduate of East Los Angeles College and California State University, Long Beach, he is the recipient of many grants, commissions, and awards, including those from the Joan Mitchell Foundation, the California Arts Commission, and the Fondation d’Art de la Napoule, France. His work has appeared in exhibitions nationwide and is in the permanent collection of major museums; among them are National Museum of American Art at the Smithsonian, Bass Museum of Art in Miami Beach, Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, Mexican Museum in Chicago, and Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Valadez lives and works in Los Angeles. Karen Mary Davalos is chair and professor of Chicana/o studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Her research interests encompass representational practices, including art exhibition and collection; vernacular performance; spirituality; feminist scholarship and epistemologies; and oral history. Among her publications are Yolanda M. López (UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Press, 2008); “The Mexican Museum of San Francisco: A Brief History with an Interpretive Analysis,” in The Mexican Museum of San Francisco Papers, 1971–2006 (UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Press, 2010); and Exhibiting Mestizaje: Mexican (American) Museums in the Diaspora (University of New Mexico Press, 2001). This interview was conducted as part of the L.A. Xicano project. Preferred citation: John Valadez, interview with Karen Mary Davalos, November 19 and 21, and December 3, 7, and 12, 2007, Los Angeles, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Judgment (Pdf)
    Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 608 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:9492 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (WESTERN DIVISION) 8 9 10 INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF ) Case No.: 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx) 11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al. ) ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT 13 ) TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT vs. ) AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN 14 ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND 15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ) PLAINTIFFS 16 CALIFORNIA, and COMMUNITY ) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE ) 17 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ) ) 18 Defendants. ) ) 19 20 21 WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles, a defendant in this action (the 22 “City”) and the Independent Living Center of Southern California (“ILCSC”), the 23 Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“FHC”) and Communities 24 Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively referred to herein as 25 “Plaintiffs”) have entered into a Corrected Settlement Agreement; and 26 WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 27 action, the Plaintiffs, the City, and the Corrected Settlement Agreement; and 28 ILC, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 12-CV-551 FMO (PJWx) AMENDED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW Document 608 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:9493 1 WHEREAS, upon consideration, the Court finds the Corrected 2 Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 4 AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Quarterly, Readers Enjoyed a Transit Account
    spring 2004 Metro Fights For la County’s Fair Share Of Transit Funding Find Out How You Can Help Chief Executive Metro is navigating di;cult >nancial straits as the ?ow of transportation funding mq spring 2004 O;cer d.c from Sacramento and Washington, . becomes more scarce. Still, it’s not Published by Roger Snoble all doom and gloom by any means. In fact, it’s an opportunity for Metro to craft Metro Communications new and better ways of moving people and goods. At the same time, we’re Department exercising a leadership role in mobilizing Los Angeles County stakeholders to Editor: contents >ght for the region’s fair share of available transportation dollars. gary wosk Los Angeles County could lose as much as $1 billion in state transportation Writers: funding in the next >ve years. Congress also is scrambling to >nd new monies for bill heard highway and mass transit projects against a backdrop of mounting federal warren morse budget de>cits. That’s the bad news. ed scannell 4 cean collier The good news is key Metro projects are moving forward. Metro’s Eastside light lisa huynh s 4 fast lanes rail project has emerged as one of the Federal Transit Administration’s top adrienne figueroa Exclusive lanes make Wilshire Boulevard Metro Rapid funding priorities, and the Metro Orange Line transitway in the San Fernando claudia keith Valley is under construction. trips even faster. Graphic Design: Metro is taking delivery of 300 high-capacity buses. Two more Metro Rapid lines metro design studio 6 getting there will debut on Soto and Vernon/La Cienega in June, and Metro is testing an Metro Orange Line transitway construction underway.
    [Show full text]
  • Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, California 01/29/13 at 10:51AM
    This page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD 20130143515 Q ~~~~~~ ~~!~l~~l~!~l!~~!J~~~!~~~~~ 1111 Pgy~g: Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, California 01/29/13 AT 10:51AM FEES: 0.00 TAXES: 0.00 OTHER: 0.00 PAID: 0.00 LEADSHEET 201301290070020 00007158687 lllllllllllllll~ IIIII IIIII IIIII ~lllll~llllll 1111 Ill 004609967 SEQ: 01 . DAR - Counter (Upfront Scan) llllllllllllllllllllllll~lllllllllllllllll~lllllllllllllll~ llllllllllllllllllllllll~llllllllll lllllllllllllllllll~ lllllllll~l\11111~ llllllllllllllll~llllll\llllllll\11 ~~~~ 11111111111 THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED £4419$3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND AFTER RECORDATION RETURN TO: City Clerk City ofLos Angeles 200 North Spring Street, Room 395 Los Angeles, California 90012 Attention: June Lagmay NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN CITY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 9 (DOWNTOWN STREETCAR) Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code and Section 53328.3 of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Act"), the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles (the "City"), State of California, hereby gives notice that a lien to secure payment of a special tax is hereby imposed by the Council of the City, State of California. The special tax secured by this lien is authorized to be levied for the purpose of ( 1) paying the principal of and interest on bonds, the proceeds of which are being used to finance the facilities described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, and (2) providing such facilities. The special tax is authorized to be levied within City ofLos Angeles Community Facilities District No.
    [Show full text]
  • CDPH/OA/ADAP) Pharmacy Network Listing June 24, 2016
    California Department of Public Health Office of AIDS, AIDS Drug Assistance Program (CDPH/OA/ADAP) Pharmacy Network Listing June 24, 2016 DIRECTORY OF CITIES Directory of cities .......................................................................................................................................................1 ACTON, CA ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 ADELANTO, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 ALAMEDA, CA ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 ALBANY, CA .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 ALHAMBRA, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 24 ALISO VIEJO, CA ................................................................................................................................................... 25 ALTADENA, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 AMERICAN CANYON, CA .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Voluntary Compliance Agreement
    VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3 II. DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................... 5 III. REMEDIAL ACTIONS..................................................................................................... 11 A. Compliance with Civil Rights Requirements .................................................................... 11 B. Requirements for Future Housing Developments, Housing Developments Currently Under Construction, Housing Developments Subject to Substantial Alterations, and Housing Developments Subject to Other Alterations .............................................................................. 12 C. Requirements for Existing Housing Developments........................................................... 13 D. Neutral Accessibility Consultant (NAC) ........................................................................... 16 E. Additional City Actions to Achieve Owner and Subrecipient Compliance with the Accessibility Standards. ............................................................................................................ 28 F. Enhanced Housing Accessibility Program for Individuals with Disabilities..................... 29 G. VCA Administrator and Section 504/ADA Coordinator..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uniquely Oakland San Francisco Business Times
    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 Uniquely OaklandOpportunities shine in California’s most inclusive and innovative city 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT UNIQUELY OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES Welcome to Mandela Station MANDELA STATION @WEST OAKLAND BART A Culture-Rich Transit Oriented Development 7TH ST T2 T1 Located at the 5.5-acre West Oakland Bart Station Site T3 T4 5TH ST A Centrally Located 750 Residential Units Opportunity Zone Project (approx. 240 units below market-rate) 500,000 sq.ft. of Class A oce space Only 7 minutes from Downtown San Francisco (via BART) 75,000 sq.ft. of quality retail Over 400 parking stalls Only 4 minutes to Downtown PROJ. # 168-153 WO BART Oakland (via BART) DATE: April 30, 2019 SHEET: A Regional Community...Connected JRDV ARCHITECTS INC. COPYRIGHT C 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. We’re on the Edge - and taking transit oriented living to the next level. www.westoaklandstation.com #WOSTATION [email protected] 中国港湾工程有限 公司 Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. suda SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 UNIQUELY OAKLAND ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 ‹ A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF OAKLAND › Uniquely Oakland Everyone belongs in the world’s best city for smart businesses, large or small elcome to Oakland, Calif., the best place ment dollars are pouring in, driving construction on the planet to pursue prosperity. on 240,000 square feet of new retail space and W If that seems like exaggeration, 945,000 square feet of new office space with consider this: Oakland is ideally located at the openings slated for 2019, 2020 and 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Sideshows: Communities and Publics in East Oakland by Cristina Cielo
    ISSC WORKING PAPER SERIES 2004-2005.01 Civic Sideshows: Communities and Publics in East Oakland by Cristina Cielo Sociology University of California, Berkeley November 16, 2005 Cristina Cielo Department of Sociology University of California, Berkeley [email protected] How do urban spatial practices contribute to the formation of collective identities and action and to the hierarchical structures of a city’s varied communities? This paper examines this question by presenting a comparative case study of two East Oakland public spaces – the streets and parks of a residential neighborhood and the hybrid public spaces of the Eastmont Town Center. A comparative analysis of the implicit property relations and “publics” produced at each site shows that, despite their differences, these spaces and their attendant collectivities share the same fundamental logic and limits. i 1 Introduction East Oakland’s city spaces do not bustle. In part, the silence of Oakland’s streets is rooted in its 1920s physical design in the idyllic suburban image of the ‘industrial garden.’ But we must follow its history into the present – through industrial and then commercial disinvestment in the area, changing demographics, rising unemployment and crime, and the forging of its contemporary identity – to understand what does go on in the area and why it looks so different from other parts of Oakland. In this paper, I examine two very different public spaces in East Oakland, the streets and parks of a residential neighborhood and the hybrid public spaces of the Eastmont Town Center. In these places, as elsewhere, both the state and the market’s inability to address local concerns has led residents to seek alternative means to meet their needs.
    [Show full text]