Berkeley City Council

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704

WORKSESSION May 15, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Laurie Capitelli and Darryl Moore

Subject: Presentation: Berkeley Housing Survey SUMMARY At their February 28, 2012 meeting, the City Council approved a presentation of a survey of Berkeley affordable housing residents sponsored by Councilmembers Laurie Capitelli and Darryl Moore. The survey was conducted in February of 2012 by two interns: Beth Gerstein, a Berkeley resident, and Gimin Shon, an undergraduate from UC Berkeley volunteering under the Cal Corps program. BACKGROUND The City Council will soon be determining an appropriate rate for an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee to be assessed on multi-unit rental housing projects. Revenues from these fees will go into the city’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) to be used to subsidize the development of affordable housing projects. Depending upon the level of the fee, the Council will either be encouraging inclusionary housing units within market-rate developments, or fully affordable housing developments through the HTF. To inform this decision, Councilmembers Capitelli and Moore directed these interns to do a survey of Berkeley residents of affordable housing, both those who live in inclusionary units in market-rate rental buildings and those who live in fully affordable developments. The survey was created to determine residents’ level of satisfaction with their current living situation. Amy Davidson, Berkeley’s Department of Housing, and Steve Barton, former Berkeley Housing Director, provided feedback on the survey methodology and questions. In all, the survey was sent to 531 residents. Over 215 surveys were completed. Two local nonprofit housing providers (Affordable housing Advocates and Resources for Community Development) also provided feedback and helped in distributing surveys to their tenants. CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, District 5 981-7150 Councilmember Darryl Moore, District 2 981-7120

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Survey Background Information: February 2012 Survey Questions, Berkeley Housing Survey Summary, May 15, 2012 Addendum. 2. Copy of May 15, 2012 Power Point Presentation

Survey Questions

First, we’d like to ask general questions about where you live now.

1. How many years have you lived in this apartment?

2. How many people live with you in this apartment? a) One (yourself) b) Two c) Three d) Four +

3. How many are under 18 years old?

We’d like to ask a few questions about where you used to live.

4. Where did you previously live? a) Nowhere; I was without a home (If you circle this, please skip to question 10) b) With a friend / relative in their residence c) In my own apartment d) In my own house

5. Where was your previous neighborhood?

a) Outside of Berkeley, in the city of ________________ b) In Berkeley (Please indicate neighborhood, e.g. South, West, Downtown Berkeley:

_______________________________________________ )

6. How would you rate your satisfaction with each of the following items where you used to live? (Rate each item, with 1 being very dissatisfied to 5 being very satisfied) a) Affordability of rent ____ b) Neighborhood safety ____ c) Physical condition of the home ____ d) Convenience of location ____

7. How would you rate your overall satisfaction where you used to live? Very dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

8. Why did you leave? (Please be as specific as possible):

9. How often did you speak with your neighbors within the building where you used to live?

(Choose one) a) Not at all

b) Once a week c) 2 – 3 times a week d) 4 – 5 times a week e) Often, 6 + times a week

We’d like to ask you questions about where you live now and your relationship with the people in your building.

10. How often do you speak with your neighbors in your building? a) Not at all b) Once a week c) 2 – 3 times a week d) 4 – 5 times a week e) Often, 6 + times a week

11. How often do you exchange information with these neighbors? a) Not at all b) One to two times per month c) One to two times a week d) Frequently

12. About which kinds of information have you exchanged in the past? (Circle all that apply)

a) Schools b) Jobs c) Affordable food d) Free things / bargains / deals e) Local resources (transportation, stores, services) f) Child care g) Social events h) Other: (Specify) __________________________________

13. How well do you know these neighbors?

a) Not at all b) Somewhat c) Well d) Very well

14. How comfortable are you living with your neighbors? Not comfortable Moderately comfortable Very comfortable 1 2 3 4 5

15. What group(s) best describes the neighbors in your building? Please circle all that apply.

a) Students b) Working Adults c) Families d) Seniors e) Other (Please indicate ________________________________________ )

16. With which group do you identify? a) Students b) Working Adults c) Families d) Seniors e) Other (Please indicate: __________________ )

17. Where do you see yourself in comparison to your neighbors in terms of income? a) I see myself as having much lower income b) I have lower income c) I have about the same income d) I have more income e) I have much more income f) I don’t know

18. How satisfied are you living in your neighborhood with regard to the below items?

(Rate each item, with 1 being very dissatisfied to 5 being very satisfied) a) Schools ____ b) Jobs ____ c) Transportation ____ d) Affordable and convenient access to grocery stores ____ e) Child care ____ f) Social events ____ g) Other (Please indicate: ___________________________________) ____

19. Is there someone who works regularly at the building who can provide resources,

referrals, and/or counseling? Circle one: Yes / No

20. Do you ever go to this person for assistance? Circle one: Yes / No

21. Does your management company provide opportunities for socializing with your neighbors? Circle all that apply: a) Holiday parties / Social gatherings b) Workshops c) Bulletin boards with posted community events d) Other (Please specify _________________ )

22. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your current residence?

Very dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

23. Would you like to keep living there? Please explain:

24. Please indicate your gender: a) Male b) Female

25. What is your age? _______

26. What is your total annual household income? (Choose one) a) Under $15,000 b) $15,000 - $25,000 c) $25,000 - $35,000 d) $35,000 and above

Thank you so much for your time and willingness to assist the City of Berkeley in determining housing policies for the future. Please make sure to indicate your preference of gift cards and your apartment unit so we can make sure to acknowledge your assistance. Gift Card Preference (circle one): Trader Joe’s Starbucks Apartment number: ____________

Berkeley Housing Survey Summary

Survey goal: The goal of the Berkeley Housing Survey, an effort sponsored by the

offices of Councilmembers Laurie Capitelli and Darryl Moore, was to determine whether low-income residents experience a qualitative difference in their living situations if residing in scattered site inclusionary housing versus 100% affordable housing complexes. “Inclusionary housing” is located in buildings where private developers are allowed to expand the number of units to be built provided that a set percentage of them are reserved for low-income tenants, effectively mixing the income levels of the buildings’ occupants. “Affordable housing complexes” are multi-unit buildings where all of the units are occupied by low-income residents and the buildings are managed by non-profit housing agencies. The survey was prompted by the upcoming policy decision to establish inclusionary housing requirements for new rental development in the community. The question at hand is whether the city should require affordable units to be included on site in new rental developments or allow developers to pay an in-lieu fee as an alternative. To better inform this decision, a resident survey was created to determine residents’ level of satisfaction with their current living situation in both types of housing.

Background: We began the survey process by collaborating with three non-profit

affordable housing agencies: Affordable Housing Associates, Resources for Community Development, and Satellite Housing. In addition to giving us feedback on the draft survey, they also granted us permission to either distribute the surveys ourselves or to have their property managers distribute for us. We surveyed 5 fully affordable buildings, choosing complexes that range geographically throughout Berkeley and that cater to diverse populations (e.g., seniors, formerly homeless individuals, families). Amy Davidson of the City of Berkeley Housing Department and former Housing Department director Steve Barton provided feedback on the creation of the survey. The Housing Department also provided a list of the property management companies that own and operate buildings with inclusionary units. We contacted every management company on the list. Like the fully affordable buildings, they either allowed us to hand deliver the surveys or had their property managers distribute them for us.

Response rate: Overall, a total of 531 residents either received hand delivered surveys

or were interviewed in person (10 people in all). Of this total, 313 live in fully affordable housing complexes and the remaining 218 reside in mixed income buildings. Residents could either return their hand-written surveys by mail, or opt to fill out the survey on-line through Survey Monkey. For analysis purposes, all of the hand-written and in-person surveys have been entered into Survey Monkey. Our survey generated an unusually strong response rate. To date, we have received 136 surveys (43%) from the fully affordable buildings, and 81 (37%) from the inclusionary units, for an overall 40% response rate (217 surveys). Undoubtedly this tremendous response was facilitated by the offered incentive of a $10 gift card from local merchants for the first 100 respondents. All of the surveys were anonymous, though coded to identify the building from which they came. Residents were asked to supply their unit number to be eligible for a gift card.

Findings: While residents in both types of buildings overwhelmingly reported general satisfaction with their residence, we noted some significant differences in responses. Overall, residents were particularly pleased with their geographical proximity to good transportation, affordable grocery shopping, schools and social events. The significant difference between the two groups lies in their interactions with neighbors within their own buildings. Residents in the inclusionary units relayed in significantly greater numbers than their fully affordable housing peers that they never spoke with their neighbors (35% vs. 6%), exchanged information with them (55% vs. 24%), or didn’t know them (52% vs. 14%). This is significant as some of the original purposes of inclusionary zoning were to integrate low-income residents within market-rate buildings to promote role modeling and informal networking regarding employment opportunities and other types of information. However, the study suggests that residents in the mixed income buildings were less likely to cross class lines and interact with their neighbors in any significant way (nearly 67% of residents in inclusionary units relayed that their income was lower or significantly lower than their neighbors’, compared to only 28% of residents in the fully affordable buildings).

Conclusion: This study, while happily revealing that the overwhelming majority of

surveyed low-income residents are satisfied with their living situation, also suggests that including low-income residents within otherwise market-rate buildings does not necessarily yield additional social or economic benefits. This, then, opens the door for expanded options for new developments, particularly with regard to their impact on the residents they serve. Policy makers should not fear allowing developers to pay an in-lieu fee as this evidence shows that properly scaled, well located affordable projects can indeed provide additional benefits to tenants.

Berkeley Housing Survey Presentation -- May 15, 2012 Addendum:

List of Academics contacted or researched because they have conducted investigations related to inclusionary zoning and resident benefits:

Erin Graves, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Diane Levy, Urban Institution, D.C. Mary Patillo, Northwestern University Rachel Kleit, University of Washington Xavier de Souza Briggs, MIT Mark Joseph, Case Western University

List of all buildings surveyed, by type: Non-profit affordable housing Affordable Housing Associates: Ashby Lofts (Ashby & 9th) University Neighborhood Apts. (University & McGee) Resources for Community Development: Oxford Plaza (Oxford and Kittredge) UA Homes (10th & University, for formerly homeless) Satellite Housing: Amistad House (Delaware & Shattuck, seniors only) Inclusionary Zoning Equity Residential (97 units total scattered throughout buildings listed below): Acton Courtyard (University & Acton) Artech Building (Addison & Milvia) Bachenheimer (University & Shattuck) The Berkeleyan (Oxford & Hearst) Fine Arts (Shattuck & Haste) Gaia Building (Allston Way & Shattuck) Renaissance Villas (University & McGee) Touriel (University & Milvia)

Essex Property Trust (31 units) 4th & U (700 University Ave.) Hudson McDonald LLC (22 units) New Californian (MLK & University) K & S Company (11 units scattered throughout 2 buildings) 1385 Shattuck Ave (Shattuck & Rose) 2616 Telegraph Ave. (Telegraph & Carlton) Peak Campus Management (26 units scattered throughout 2 buildings) Allston Place (Allston Way & Shattuck) Stadium Place (Fulton & Shattuck) Riverstone Residential Group (30 units) Library Gardens (Kittredge & Shattuck)

Total Number of non-profit run Affordable Housing units surveyed: 313 Total Number of Inclusionary Zoning units surveyed: 226

Total number of distributed surveys: 531 Response rate: Total number of surveys received: 217 (40.8%) Number of surveys received from affordable housing residents: 136 Number of surveys received from inclusionary housing residents: 81