NOHO by Felix Luong

NOHO HARVARD

UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF DESIGN

NORTH HOLLYWOOD FIELD STUDY:

SUBURBAN TRANSIT-ORIENTED TOWNCENTER

REDEVELOPMENT

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

PAGE

0. FORWARD

1. SITE

2. NORTH HOLLYWOOD STORY

3. DEMOGRAPHICS

4. MARKET ANALYSIS

5. PRECEDENTS

6. TRANSPORTATION & ENVIRONMENT

7. NOHO+

8. NORTH HOLLYWOOD CIRCLE

9. NOHO VIBE

0. FORWARD NORTH HOLLYWOOD FIELD STUDY

INTRODUCTION North Hollywood’s town center sits at the junction of the subway to downtown Los Angeles and the rapid bus transit lines serving the San Fernando Valley. It is expected to be one of the fastest-growing suburban nodes in the Los Angeles metropolitan area over the next twenty years. Students in the field study focus on creating a concept plan for the town center, envisioning how it could accommodate an additional 5-10 million square feet of development over the next twenty years based on their analysis of demographic and market factors influencing the future of North Hollywood. This report presents the work of three teams of students. The course is part of a series of courses entitled “Field Studies in Real Estate, Urban Planning and Design.” It is an interdisciplinary course with students this year who come from Urban Planning, Architecture, and Master of Design Studies (MDES) in Real Estate and MDES in History and Philosophy of Design. Field Studies differ from typical design school studios in several respects: while they emphasize physical planning and urban design strategies, they focus on real-world problems that must meet the demands of the market place and financial success. Strategies such as placing all parking underground to give the site plan more green space, for example, must demonstrate that revenues from the project will cover the additional costs associated with underground parking. The objective is not to maximize the profitability of the ultimate development but to maximize the livability from all perspectives and for all stakeholders. The best proposals serve social needs as well as address affordable housing, and cultural excitement. North Hollywood was originally suggested to me as a site for a Los Angeles field study by Con Howe, past Planning Director for the City of Los Angeles. It is representative of suburban transit nodes in many cities; it is in an area that is changing demographically with an increasing Hispanic population, and benefits from being within a mile of most of the major Hollywood studios. Still, its future is by no means certain, and the site currently suffers from typical suburban sprawl with a mixture of strip retail, non-pedestrian-friendly roads, single family homes, small apartment buildings, and automobile-oriented uses. It represents an ideal laboratory for students to examine how to densify innerring suburban nodes that are ripe for redevelopment. I am very grateful to Lynn Richards, current Loeb Fellow at the GSD and Policy Director for the EPA’s Office of Sustainability, who stepped forward with an offer to share her unique expertise and who I drafted to co-teach the class 05

with me. I am also grateful to Linda Law, former Chair of the International Advisory Board of the Real Estate Academic Initiative at Harvard for her financial support, as well as to Burbank developer Dan Chandler who I have known since my days at USC and who is a major developer in Burbank and North Hollywood. The students met with a number of prominent real estate professionals and government officials during their site visit to LA in March: Dan’s partner, Todd Pratt; LA City Planning Department officials (and GSD graduates) Kevin Keller and Shana Murphy Bonstin; Simon Pastucha, head of Urban Design for the LA City Planning Department; Alex Kalamaros (via conference call) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and entitlement expert Mee Semcken. I am also grateful to Wayne Ratkovich and Claire Debriere of The Ratkovich Company and Sol Blumenfeld, Redevelopment Director of Culver City, for the time they spent meeting with the students. We were treated to a delightful evening with planning students at USC thanks to the hospitality of planning department chair, Professor Marlon Boarnet. The students focus on the land owned by the MTA around the subway and rapid bus transit but also look at development opportunities for future development in the surrounding area. The accompanying financial analyses summarize their redevelopment strategies and provide details about the land use mix, development phasing, market absorption, costs, revenues, subsidies, and financial returns from the perspective of a master developer or redevelopment agency. The students’ work provides a range of visions for the future of downtown North Hollywood. The proposals focus not only on new shopping centers and apartment buildings but also on traffic calming and other measures that have proven successful in other suburban town centers. Central to every vision is a vision for public space both on the MTA site and on surrounding parcels. Linda Law, a sponsor of the Field Study and San Francisco-based developer, notes the following constraints for executing the students’ conceptions: •The property will need to be re-entitled because the existing approvals are out of date and are not financially viable. There is no longer any help from a redevelopment agency for properties not owned by the MTA. •The car dealerships which are adjacent to the property will NOT move, they make a lot of money and the taxes are very important to the community. •There is no ability to utilize the threat of eminent domain. •It is very difficult to form any type of infrastructure assessment district. •The surrounding area is comprised of small parcels under separate ownerships and will be hard to assemble and develop a critical mass. •The sale of the property will be a public bid process that will be highly political and will not necessarily go to the best developer or the best project. •There is no money in the county coffers for streets/landscaping. •Though the Academy of TV is terrific, it is not a visible property and will not draw tourists Notwithstanding the above constraints, we hope that policy makers, stakeholders, and real estate developers will benefit from the research and proposals presented here and that the students may be able to return to North Hollywood some time in the future and see evidence of their work.

Richard Peiser Michael D. Spear Professor of Real Estate Development

INTRODUCTION II The North Hollywood site presents a tremendous opportunity to help energize an emerging, creative arts neighborhood into a prosperous and vital regional destination. However, to maximize the potential effectiveness of any development efforts, the neighborhood will need to transform itself from an auto-dominated landscape to a pedestrian-scaled environment. There are considerable challenges to achieving that goal. In many of our meetings, we constantly heard “the car king is Los Angeles,” meaning we had to preserve the level of service on the roads and the same (or more) parking spaces. But how can a neighborhood take root and prosper with a five-lane road bisecting it? How could this neighborhood capitalize on the economic opportunities offered by the transit lines if it was encouraging people to stay in their cars? Would the city officials approach this redevelopment differently if they sought to maximize people on the street instead of parking spaces, apartment rents, and retail square footage? These are the very questions the students in our field study sought to resolve. Successful neighborhoods in urban, rural, and suburban areas may differ in scale and experience, but they have many of the same characteristics: there is a dense central area with a range and diversity of places to live, work, shop, and play, and where its safe and inviting to walk or bike. The roads intersecting and supporting these areas are designed to slow and manage traffic, allowing vehicles to contribute to the vibrant streetscape but not to dominate it. And there are people everywhere: old, young, men, women, hippy, yuppy, business executives, and 20-somethings. It’s the presence of people that allow these places to prosper economically, supporting a larger and diverse tax base, and better weathering economic downturns. Redevelopment of the North Hollywood site has the incredible potential to leverage the existing transit options as well as increase pedestrian and bike access within the neighborhood and between the surrounding communities. Putting people first will be the key ingredient for success for any redevelopment efforts in North Hollywood. The more people on the street, the more economically and socially healthier the community is. The students in this field study looked carefully at a range of options to bring more pedestrian activity to the street—either through wider sidewalks, safer street crossings, or bike lanes. In addition to strategies to tame the streets, they sought to create public spaces where neighbors and visitors could mingle and create community. It is in these areas—the space between the buildings—that can dramatically impact the design and function of a neighborhood. Finally, I’d like to offer an enormous thanks to Rick Peiser and the students of this field study for allowing me to be a part of this effort. All of the students brought fresh insights and ideas to the challenges and opportunities surrounding suburban retrofit.

Lynn Richards 2013 Loeb Fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Design Policy Director, Office of Sustainable Communities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 07

ST K ST AR D

PO L

FO RD

HU BB

WOODLEY AVE

WHITE OAK AVE

ZELZAH AVE

HW UT

RD W

VINELAND AVE

BALBOA BLVD

AVE

LA NK

BURBANK BLVD

COLDWATER CANYON AVE

GL CLYBOURN

SHERMAN WAY

RESEDA BLVD

T ES

WHITE OAK AVE

WINNETKA AVE

S UN

A RO

DE SOTO AVE

O ND

E RN BO

A RN

TOPANGA CANYON BLVD

VA LLE

BLV

YS NU

N VA

NORDHOFF ST

OFF ST

ROSCOE BLVD

D BLV

VD BL

FALLBROOK AVE

IL L TH

PL A TT A V E

O FO

E AV

BLVD

D AR

BL V

BA N K

A ND

BU R

VICTORY BLVD

VANOWEN ST

O WO

N O RDH

BB HU

RINALDI ST

SEPULVEDA BLVD

E AV

CIR

BLV

E CL

PA TA M

DEVONSHIRE ST

RO X

AB ED

SNO

IM SH KER

ULV

N ON BLV D

L AN

P SE

S ES

SH ER IM

ER R IV DR

BL RO CK

D BLV LE ND A

AV E

R OA

UE M

F IG

AD RO ON

VA L L EY B L

CHANDLER BLVD

170

4 T H ST

IN G

O LYMP IC BLV D

T O N BLVD

LONG BEACH AVE

GL E

VIRGIL AVE

O ST R AD ALVA

HOOVER ST

E MA IN

PL GR AN D AV OAD WAY BR

CENTURY BLVD

H AV EZ

MAGNOLIA BLVD

CENTRAL AVE

LA CIENEGA BLVD

FLORENCE AVE

WILMINGTON AVE

G DR SH IN AR PER LM A DE VIST

IMPERIAL HWY

AIRPORT BLVD

PKWY

MANCHESTER AVE

AVIATION BLVD

WESTCH ESTER

AVE

LA CIENEGA BLVD

CU LV

MANCHESTER AVE

E LA

BROADWAY

SLAUSON AVE

CEN T IN

NTR AL

VINE ST

LA BREA AVE

LV D

TOC

FIGUEROA ST

SH WA

KER

RODEO ROAD

BLV

N IC

BLV

ALAMEDA ST

IC E

P IC BLV D

BLV D

SO TO ST

B LV

Y DR

CE SA

AVALON BLVD

AB ED

BU ND

LIN CO

N VE

EB N IC VE L NP TO ING

D LV EB N IC VE ADAMS BLVD

OL YM

WESTERN AVE

SA WILSHI RE BLVD N VI CE NT E BL BLV D VD

LE IM ER TB

FAIRFAX AVE

LA CIENEGA BLVD

VD BL T NSE

MP OLY

LV PU

D BLV

OA ST

BEVERLY BLVD

VE SA

P A C IFIC C

PIC O

SU N S

S RE

SA N

D LV AB IC ON

VD E BL HI R

P CY

YOR K

E GL

ER S

D BLV

T BL

HOLLYWOOD BLVD

D LV AB

R IV

SUN S E

BURBANK BLVD

HU E

SIDE DR

WN T LA

O RO

S RE

A BLV D

VERMONT AVE

VEN TUR

R NA N FE

RIVERSIDE DR A ND D R

OL L

BLVD

CENTURY BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

ALONDRA BLVD

190TH ST

DEL AMO BLVD

AL AM ED A

CARSON ST

ANAHEIM ST HARRY BRIDGES BLVD

WESTERN AVE

CAMARILLO ST

OC EA

HENRY FORD AVE

F EY ST

WES TER N AVE

LOMITA BLVD P A CIF IC COA S T H WY

MIRA LEST

101

VD N BL

134

9TH ST

25TH ST

GAFFEY ST

E DR

2002 Boundary

G AF

Council Districts

NORMANDIE AVE

SE PU LV ED A BL VD

02 08

1. SITE

ABOUT NORTH HOLLYWOOD North Hollywood district is a part of the San Fernando Valley region located in Los Angeles. The district is surrounded by Burbank on the east, Hollywood Hills and Studio City on the south, Van Nuys on the west across the freeway 170 and Sun Valley on the North. This first tier suburban distrct has shown immense development opportunities since the opening up of the Red Line Metro subway station in 2000. With the presence of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NoHO Arts District, NoHo Commons, proximity to the Universal Studios further South, an interesting demographic setup, city infrastructure such as schools, churches, public libraries, park and recreation, North Hollywood seems to offer immense scope of development. Diagonally intersecting the district is the main Lankershim Blvd that is the main commercial zone for the area. (Image 01, 02) THE SITE The site identified is 10.45 acres of MTA owned property located at the intersection of Lankershim Blvd and Chandler Blvd. (Image 03) The site is the node for intersection of different modes of transportation such as the North Hollywood Red Line Station, the Orange line bus way stop and the historic depot of the Red car trolleys. (Image 04,05,06, 07) Further on the west side of the site starts the bicycle path that runs westwards through all the Orange Line Stations. (Image 08) The California Highway that runs in the North- South is located 0.5 miles on the east and the 135 freeway runs 1.5 miles south of the site. Abutting the site on the west is a multi family residential development, which is the Phase I of the NoHo Commons program, that occupies 472,256 sq.ft and is assessed by the LA County in 2009 for $98 million. Also on the west side is the bicycle path that starts from North Hollywood Metro station and runs across all the Orange Lines stations westwards.2 On the south of the site across Chandler Blvd is the NoHo Commons Phase, a mixed used development community that is developed to make use of the prominence of the metro station and the adjacent NoHo Arts District. Across Lankershim Blvd on the east side of the site is located the historic depot that requires restoration. The NoHo 14, a 14-story project with 180 units, initially conceived to be condominium units and later converted to residential units, stands tall in comparison to the surrounding urban fabric on the east side of the site. The project was foreclosed in 2009, sold later in 2010 and still remain unoccupied in spite of significant upgrades and adding in amenities. On the north of the site across the Cumpston Street are predominantly single family residential blocks that trickles down further North to more residential development. CITY INFRASTRUCTURE Owing to the predominantly residential suburban neighborhood the area has a number of religious institutions, recreation centers, schools, post offices and hospitals. Among the religious institutions the most visited and popular is the First Baptist Church that is located in the predominantly residential area and close to the NoHo Arts District. On the Tujunga Ave facing the park is the North Hollywood Mason Lodge that has been there since 1922. Catering to the residential community are the 20 public schools and 5 private schools that fall under the Los Angeles Unified School District. Hospitals are dispersed around the entire district of North Hollywood though there are not many in the immediate blocks around the identified metro site. With regard to connectivity to airports the Bob Hope airport is located 3.6 Miles on the west from the site and the Van Nuys airport is about 10.7 miles. 09

NORTH HOLLYWOOD ARTS DISTRICT The influence of the movie industry is definitely prominent in North Hollywood due to the proximity to Universal Studios. In 1992, the City of Los Angeles created the NoHo Arts District in North Hollywood to promote the natural concentration of artists and to create an economic engine fueled by the arts. Already well known for its diverse theatre and arts venues and unique cultural offerings, the NoHo Arts District is gaining momentum as one of the most noted and identifiable cultural tourism destinations in California. Post production studios, Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, presence of gyms & fitness centers, theatres for performing arts and culture, studios for dance, photography and videos and diverse art galleries offer the vibrancy to the area. The NoHo Arts District is a one-square mile community filled with an eclectic array of entertainment options, located in North Hollywood, just one mile north of Universal Studios on the Metro Redline, North Hollywood stop. With more than 20 theatres, six art galleries, public art, professional dance studios, music recording venues, annual festivals, dining options and specialty shops, NoHo sells itself as an arts & entertainment destination. The dominant feature of the arts district is the Academy of Television Plaza that is hidden behind amidst surrounding buildings that comprises offices, post production units and theatres not accessible to the public. The public plaza has as its anchor the Emmy's statue with the hall of fame portraying the busts of various television artists and mostly attracts inquisitive tourists. (Image 09, 10 ) There are about 31 theatres in the North Hollywood district that are a mix of historical, eclectic, theatres for the deaf and newly developed ones. The art deco styled, El Portal Theatre is of specific historical importance and one of the land marks in the San Fernando Valley. (Image 11 ) Located on the Lankershim Blvd and close to within the arts district, this recently restored theatres offers special screenings, workshops and hosts movie productions. One of the other unique theatres of the region is the Deaf West Theatre that has productions specifically catering to the deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Also located on Lankershim Blvd, this theatre offers educational outreach programs, workshops and collaborates with touring companies to increase the awareness of Deaf culture. (Image 12 ) An interesting program evolved as a part of the city's initiative is the NOHO Senior Arts Colony. NOHO Senior Arts Colony is the new active adult apartment community created exclusively for artists â&#x20AC;&#x201D; from the performing arts, to visual arts, to film and beyond. Some of the amenities that this colony provides are artist's studio, artists lounge for exhibitions, digital media center, theatre apart from the other typical amenities required in a community living. (Image 13,14,15,16) 11

21 18

20 12

THE PARK North Hollywood has at its own park that is on the Magnolia Blvd on the east of the 170 freeway. It is about a block away from the Orange Line station, the metro and the bicycle path making it accessible by public transportation as well offering scope to become pedestrian friendly. Once the proposal for restoration of the old train station facing the park on the Chander Blvd is completed, it would make the area more vibrant and active. The museum of San Fernando Valley offers the historic walking tour of the area that covers, apart from other interesting sights, the Amelia Earhart Library, named after the famous aviator, and her Statue which is located within the park. In spite of these programs and initiatives taken the park remains underutilized and sparsely populated. The Amelia Earhart Library is located on the South East corner within the park and is a one story brick building that primarily serves the local community. The park has a recreational center that is presently under used and contains facilities such as baseball diamond courts, basketballs courts, children's play area, designated skate plaza, handball courts, indoor gyms, seasonal pools, tennis courts and an auditorium. Also the park has its own parking facilities to cater to the recreational facilities and visitors of the park. These run down facilities provided are a cause of neglect as there is not much activity and increasing the public to utilize the park are one of the issues the city needs to look into. (Image 17,18,19,20, 21)

NOHO COMMONS The NoHo Commons is a mixed used development project proposed in three phases by the CRA/LA that comprises residential, retail, office and entertainment uses. It was a public private development of which the first two phases have been completed for a total development cost of $192 million. Phase I comprises mainly residential apartments that are a mix of both market rate and affordable units and was completed in December 2006. Phase II was marketed as NoHo lofts and shops that was also completed in December 2006 and with the retail component partially leased by May 2006. (Image 26)The HOWS market, a 36,000sqft of retail development, comprises of retail chains and anchor stores along with banks. Leasing operations are not completed and some of the units still remain open for availability. Due to the political interference and change within the structure of the CRA there has been a drastic delay or maybe even a stop in the completion of Phase III that was initially proposed to focus on commercial and retail stores. (Image 22,23)

LANKERSHIM BLVD The main road that intersects North Hollywood and runs across the eastern side of the MTA metro station is Lankershim Blvd. The fabric of the boulevard is predominantly commercial that comprises more of restaurants, in the south especially near the NoHo Arts District and NoHo Commons. Moving towards the North of Lankershim the retail activity is mainly car dealerships that reflects on the importance of cars in the Los Angeles area. Presently, the boulevard and the rest of the other major roads in the area are wide and not pedestrian friendly. (Image 24,25) 1. Los Angles Property Tax Portal, maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp 2. Bike Paths Los Angeles, labikepaths.com/bike-paths/orange-line-busway 3. North Hollywood Lodge 542, www.lodge542.com 4. Los Angeles Unified School Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s & District Profiles, search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=PROFILE0 5. NoHo Arts District Theatre Guide, nohoartsdistrict.com/theatre-guide/theatres-in-north-hollywood 6. The Historic El Portal Theatre, elportaltheatre.com/elportal.html 7. Deaf West Theatre, Mission Statement, deafwest.org/aboutdwt/mission.html 8. NOHO Senior Arts Colony, http://www.nohoseniorartscolony.com/ 9. The Museum of San Fernando Valley Walking Tours, http://www.themuseumsfv.org/events/tours 10. North Hollywood Recreational Center, http://www.laparks.org/dos/reccenter/facility/northhollywoodrc.htm 11. CRA/LA Building Communities, NoHo Commons, http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/North_Hollywood/NoHoCommons.cfm

Source: California Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles

2. NORTH HOLLYWOOD STORY

NORTH HOLLYWOOD HISTORY The California Redevelopment Authority (CRA/LA) in Los Angles identified a 743-acre Redevelopment Project Area in North Hollywood, one mile north of the intersection of the Hollywood and Ventura freeways and immediately north of the Cahuenga Pass. The first plan was adopted in 1979 and has been amended three times, twice legislatively. Located within the Project Area is the North Hollywood Commercial & Artcraft District, more commonly known as the NoHo Arts District, which is why the most recent amendment emphasizes attracting and retaining the arts and entertainment industry in the area. (Image 01) According to the CRA/LA, at the time of adoption, the Project Area contained the following blighting conditions, many of which are still present in 1 2013: - Numerous instances of structural deterioration plus environmental and land use conflicts which deterred significant investment; - High population density and overcrowding; - Incompatible land uses or shifting of uses; - Defective design of physical construction combined with increasing age, obsolescence, deterioration and dilapidation; - Inadequate public infrastructure and public facilities. Major streets requiring improvements included Lankershim, Burbank, Magnolia, and Chandler boulevards. In addition, many minor streets did not meet City standards and street lighting throughout the area was seriously deficient. 2

Some of the issues and objectives expressed in the Community Plan are listed below: Residential

Preserve single family homes Need for more affordable housing Lack of open space in apartment projects

Commercial Transportation

Lack of continuity and cohesiveness along commercial frontages. Lack of landscaping, architectural character and scale Establish appropriate transitions between industrial, commercial, and residential uses Provide a range of density that encourages a mix of various housing opportunities 15

02 Source: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning

LAND USE PLANNING As part of the Community Plan the Los Angeles City Planning office developed a generalized land use plan that shows Lankershim as the main commercial corridor, surrounded by multifamily particularly at the metro stop and orange line terminus on the Chandler/Lankershim intersection with the intention of laying out the grounds for a Transit Oriented Development. (Image 02) 16

03 Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

04 Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority & Lowe Enterprises

THE ROLE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY: NORTH HOLLYWOOD JOINT DEVELOPMENT In order to continue the efforts established by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning and CRA/LA, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in August 2006 for an integrated mixed use development on 5 parcels totaling about 15.6 acres of Metro property around the end of the red line. The RFQ was followed by a Request for Proposal (RFP) jointly issued by Metro and CRA/LA office in March 2007. The RFP went out to CIM Group, Forest City and Lowe Enterprises, the proposals were to include a 3 long term ground lease and implementation plan. (Image 03 - metro land) Lowe Enterprises was selected out of the group; their proposal was primarily an office mixed-use project that included retail, residential and community spaces in approximately 1.7 million square feet. The project was called The NoHo Art Wave and was divided in four Phases. Lowe had an aggressive proposal for the area by intending to build over a million square feet of office space, but market experts believed the development could be achieved over time given adjacent and regional developments and the enormous public transportation access in the site. (Image 04 - Lowe Proposal) Metro approved the project in September 2007 but the project was put on hold as the economy tanked and has remained in that state since. Metro’s board of directors remain open to the idea of a mixed-use project for the site and hope to find a committed developer that can finance the project. In the meantime, Metro is working to restore the old Lankershim train depot which served Red Trolley cars from the late 1800’s to the 1950’s.

Source: flickr/rudebigdog

NOHO BRANDING The NoHo Arts District was established in 1992 by business and theatre owners in the Universal City/North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce with support from the L.A. Department of Cultural Affairs. The District is home to contemporary theaters, art galleries, dance studios, cafes and shops. The NoHo Arts District worked in conjunction with the CRA/LA to try an beautify the are in order to attract more businesses. The main focus of their efforts was to revamp store fronts on Lankershim Blvd and Magnolia Blvd. The District also offers tours and workshops to help increase the interaction between the arts and the community and holds two festivals (Spring and Fall) to highlight the kind of work that happens every day within the district. (Image 05) 1. http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/North_Hollywood/about.cfm 2. http://planning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/nhlcptxt.pdf 3. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metro North Hollywood Joint Development, Planning & Programming committee, September 19, 2007.

03 18

3. DEMOGRAPHICS

North Hollywood is home to an estimated 183,000 residents and 65,000 households. With a population density of 14,000 per square mile, this density is about average for the Los Angeles area, although it is among the highest in the country. The demographics of North Hollywood are not unlike what would be expected in a suburban neighborhood: relative to the urban core, there is a higher proportion of family households, homeownership levels are higher, income levels are low to moderate, and education levels are low to moderate. Additionally, the North Hollywood area has a large Hispanic population, comprising just under half of the total population. In the areas closest to the North Hollywood Metro station â&#x20AC;&#x201C; where the NoHo Arts District has sprouted â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the demographics are slightly more representative of urban areas. There are fewer families and fewer households with children and a higher share of renters, as detailed further in this section. THE NORTH HOLLYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD For this demographic study, the North Hollywood neighborhood is defined as the area bounded by Roscoe Boulevard to the north, Vineland Avenue to the east, the Ventura Freeway to the south, and Woodman Avenue to the west. The Hollywood Freeway bisects the length of the neighborhood. (Image 01)

LARGE HISPANIC POPULATION North Hollywood is a diverse neighborhood in which the Hispanic population comprises 48% of the total population with 89,000 people. Whites constitute the next largest share of the population with a total of 70,000 people or 38% of the population. 7% of the population is Asian, and 4% are Black/ 1 African American. The large Hispanic population is typical of the area; 49% of Los Angeles city and 46% of the San Fernando Valley are Hispanic. In Burbank, which is located just east of North Hollywood, the Hispanic population is much lower at 25%. Additionally, the share of the Hispanic population changes quite drastically, moving from north to south across the North Hollywood neighborhood. In the northeast section of the North Hollywood neighborhood, around 85% of the population is Hispanic. In the southern end of the neighborhood, south of the Metro station, the Hispanic population is much lower, 2 around 15%. (Image 03) LOW-MODERATE INCOME LEVELS The income levels of North Hollywood can be characterized as low to moderate income, with a median household income of $46,500. This is quite similar to the median household income of all of Los Angeles city, which has a median income of $48,700. However, the median household income in North Hollywood is $12,000 lower than the median in the San Fernando Valley and 3 $20,000 lower than the median in neighboring Burbank. (Image 04)

06 20

MAJORITY OF HOUSEHOLDS ARE FAMILIES 58% of households in North Hollywood are families. This is relatively representative of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, in which families comprise 68% of households. Its neighbor to the west, Burbank, has a very similar household demographic, with 60% of households as families. In comparison, only 19% of households in West Hollywood, its neighbor to the south, are families. Although North Hollywood is a relatively family-rich area, the area directly near the NoHo Arts District and the North Hollywood MTA station (within a 5-block radius) tends to have a smaller share of family households. About 35% of households living in this area are family households, and only about 15% of 4 households have children. Conversations with local developers also indicate that the population around the arts district is changing with more young couples and individuals working in the arts and entertainment district moving in. (Image 05) RENTING VERSUS OWNING 67% of households in North Hollywood are renters, slightly higher than the share in Los Angeles, which is 61%. The share of renters in North Hollywood is also higher than that of the San Fernando Valley where the majority of households are homeowners, with 47% renting. Additionally, the areas closest to the Metro station have extremely high levels of renting. Within a 5-block radius of the Metro station, 95% of households are renters with median incomes around 5 $40,000. (Image 06) EDUCATION 75% of North Hollywood residents aged 25 years and over have at high school diplomas. 9,900 people (8%) have graduate or professional degrees, and 6 an additional 24,400 people (20%) hold bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees. This is about average for the city of Los Angeles, in which 74% of residents aged 25% and over are high school graduates and 31% have bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees or higher. (Image 07)

1. US Census ACS 2005-9 2. US Census ACS 2010 3. US Census ACS 2005-9 4. US Census ACS 2010 5. US Census ACS 2010 6. US Census ACS 2005-9

4. MARKET ANALYSIS

LOS ANGELES OFFICE OUTLOOK The 164-million-square-foot Los Angeles office market began 2013 on a mixed note as total vacancy remained stubbornly high. Although specific office submarkets around the region, such as the Westside’s Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, have seen decreasing vacancy rates and increased rental rates, the overall market remains mostly flat even though year-over-year job growth continues to improve slowly. With growth in professional services, leisure and hospitality, and healthcare and educational services comprising the bulk of the area’s job growth, expect office market fundamentals to recover gradually as the overall national economy gains ground, especially in the second half of the year. ECONOMY Unemployment rate continues to creep down, but not fast enough In February, the unemployment rate in Los Angeles County decreased to 10.3% as year-over-year total nonfarm employment increased by 89,400 (+2.3%). Although this is a welcome development, being that unemployment has been over 11% for much of the past three years, it is still higher than the overall unemployment rate for California (9.6%) and the nation (7.6%). Growth sectors in professional and business services, healthcare and educational services, and entertainment, media, and technology will continue to lead the region. SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT New office development remains at a minimum, but creative office conversions dominate The first quarter of 2013 finally saw the delivery to the market of the Pacific Design Center’s Red Building, which brought 418,617 sq. ft. of new construction to West Hollywood. Market-wide elevated vacancy levels have kept new ground up office projects at a minimum, with CIM Group’s Formosa South at the Lot in West Hollywood and Millworks’ new building for Molina Healthcare in downtown Long Beach being the largest projects. It should be noted, however, that the demand for creative office space has caused many landlords and developers to convert older office and industrial buildings to creative use. The success of recent creative office projects such as the Hercules Campus and The Reserve in Playa Vista has spawned imitators throughout the region. DEMAND Negative net absorption due to large givebacks in El Segundo and Burbank Demand for office space in the first quarter was negative (-394,217 sq. ft.) mostly due to Northrop Grumman and Raytheon together giving back nearly 448,000 sq. ft. in El Segundo, as well as Disney giving back nearly 477,000 sq. ft. in Burbank. Surprisingly, strong positive net absorption was seen in the San Fernando Valley (+220,324 sq. ft.) while Downtown Los Angeles (+57,909 sq. ft.) and West Los Angeles (+1,952 sq. ft.) were mostly flat. 23

VACANY Vacancy increases again as new delivery adds to vacant space on the market The total vacancy rate increased 40 basis points from 18.3% reported at yearend 2012 to 18.7% at the end of the first quarter. As mentioned previously, large space givebacks from Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Disney largely contributed to the increase in office vacancy. However, the new delivery of the Pacific Design Center’s Red Building in West Hollywood added to the amount of vacant office space currently on the market. While many companies are no longer in the cost-cutting mode seen during the height of the recent economic downturn, long-term trends in office space utilization where firms are taking less office space without shedding employees will continue to act as a headwind moving forward. RENTAL RATES Average asking rental rates flat to begin the year Overall average asking rental rates remained flat at $30.88 per sq. ft. per year in the first quarter. However, in certain office submarkets such as Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Sherman Oaks, rents have been increasing, especially for Class A space. With total vacancy in the Los Angeles office market still hovering close to 20%, it will be some time before the overall market sees the average asking rental rate rise, but for certain office submarkets around the region, it is already happening. SAN FERNANDO VALLEY POSTS STRONG POSITIVE NET ABSORPTION Office market in recovery although tenants and landlords remain cautious The San Fernando Valley surprisingly saw a strong positive 220,324 sq. ft. net absorption in the first quarter. Activity came from existing office tenants expanding and new startup companies emerging. Regal Medical Group renewed and expanded to 96,000 sq. ft., and Child and Family Guidance Clinic (CFGC) signed a new lease for 34,000 sq. ft., both in Northridge. Not all San Fernando Valley tenants have grown—AIG renewed/downsized from 182,000 sq. ft. to 138,000 sq. ft. in Woodland Hills. The average asking rental rate increased slightly to $29.27 per sq. ft., spurred by Sherman Oaks office vacancy decreasing to just 7.8% in the first quarter. With Class A rate increases expected this year in Studio/ Universal Cities and Encino/Tarzana, rising rental rates may soon cause tenants to begin looking for cheaper alternatives in Woodland Hills/Warner Center and North Hollywood. In the region’s highest price first quarter office investment sale, Brookfield Opportunity Fund acquired the 10-building Corporate Pointe at West Hills for $91.3 million, followed by Thrifty Oil Company acquiring 21820-21860 Owensmouth Ave for $40.0 million. With two of the largest office investment sales in the region occurring in the San Fernando Valley, it appears that savvy value-add buyers are venturing outside of well-known, overpriced office markets such as West LA and Downtown LA in order to look for deals. Expect this trend to continue in 2013. 25

LOS ANGELESâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S VACANCY STAYS AT 5.2% Net Absorption Negative (61,882) SF in the Quarter The Los Angeles retail market did not experience much change in market conditions in the first quarter 2013. The vacancy rate went from 5.2% in the previous quarter to 5.2% in the current quarter. Net absorption was negative (61,882) square feet, and vacant sublease space decreased by (23,222) square feet. Quoted rental rates increased from fourth quarter 2012 levels, ending at $24.39 per square foot per year. A total of 17 retail buildings with 168,670 square feet of retail space were delivered to the market in the quarter, with 640,497 square feet still under construction at the end of the quarter. NET ABSORPTION Retail net absorption was basically flat in Los Angeles first quarter 2013, with negative (61,882) square feet absorbed in the quarter. In fourth quarter 2012, net absorption was positive 508,177 square feet, while in third quarter 2012, absorption came in at negative (629,377) square feet. In second quarter 2012, negative (1,151,386) square feet was absorbed in the market. Tenants moving out of large blocks of space in 2013 include: Albertsons moving out of 40,000 square feet at 6255 E 2nd St; Stein Mart moving out of 32,000 square feet at 1375 Foothill Blvd.; and Staples moving out of 29,303 square feet at 17206- 17228 Lakewood Blvd. Tenants moving into large blocks of space in 2013 include: Target moving into 99,000 square feet at Beverly Connection; Walmart moving into 78,537 square feet at 2801 Cochran St; and Vallarta Supermarkets moving into 63,000 square feet at 2600 E Vineyard Ave. VACANCY Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s retail vacancy rate changed in the first quarter 2013, ending the quarter at 5.2%. Over the past four quarters, the market has seen an overall increase in the vacancy rate, with the rate going from 5.1% in the second quarter 2012, to 5.3% at the end of the third quarter 2012, 5.2% at the end of the fourth quarter 2012, to 5.2% in the current quarter. The amount of vacant sublease space in the Los Angeles market has trended down over the past four quarters. At the end of the second quarter 2012, there were 957,520 square feet of vacant sublease space. Currently, there are 891,825 square feet vacant in the market. LARGEST LEASE SIGNINGS The largest lease signings occurring in 2013 included: the 46,000-squarefoot-lease signed by Cinemark at Runway Playa Vista; the 36,000-square-foot-deal signed by Whole Foods at Runway Playa Vista; and the 35,000-square-foot-lease signed by Ross Dress For Less at 4550 W Pico Blvd. RENTAL RATES Average quoted asking rental rates in the Los Angeles retail market are up over previous quarter levels, and up from their levels four quarters ago. Quoted rents ended the first quarter 2013 at $24.39 per square foot per year. That compares to $23.99 per square foot in the fourth quarter 2012, and $24.12 per square foot at the end of the second quarter 2012. This represents a 1.7% increase in rental rates in the current quarter, and a 1.11% ncrease from four quarters ago.

SAN FERNANDO VALLERY MARKET

HOTEL-Market LOS ANGELES

LOS ANGELES HOTEL MARKET 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0%

Avg. Cap Rate

9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 05 4.0%

06 05

07 06

08 07

09 08

Avg. PPU (K)(K) Avg. PPU

300000 300000

Year-Over-Year % Change Year-Over-Year % Change

200%

150%

100%

50%

100000

50% 0% -50%0%

50000

-50% -100%

0 05

Region

07 Market

San Francisco

250%

200%

150000 150000

250%

200000 200000

50000

$ Volume

300% 300%

250000 250000

100000

$ Volume

$2,000,000,000.0 $1,800,000,000.0 $1,600,000,000.0 $2,000,000,000.0 $1,400,000,000.0 $1,800,000,000.0 $1,600,000,000.0 $1,200,000,000.0 $1,400,000,000.0 $1,000,000,000.0 $1,200,000,000.0 $800,000,000.0 $1,000,000,000.0 $600,000,000.0 $800,000,000.0 $400,000,000.0 $600,000,000.0 $200,000,000.0 $400,000,000.0 $$200,000,000.0 12

-100%

Data

2005

# Properties Volume Total Units Avg PSF/PPU Avg Cap Rate

$ $

17 336,987,791 2,945 122,854 13.3%

2006

35 $ 1,588,107,257 7,594 $ 239,116 7.4%

2007

30 $ 1,639,963,009 6,742 $ 202,855 9.5%

2008

$ $

7 35,850,000 363 83,096 8.6%

2009

5 $ 104,016,667 682 $ 152,510 7.6%

2010

23 $ 540,114,127 3,097 $ 200,314 4.5%

2011

$ $

20 736,992,438 3,557 226,358 6.7%

2012

$ $

22 925,293,500 4,884 209,718 6.3%

NOHO RENTAL COMPARABLES Rental Comparables NOHO

NOHO RESIDENTIAL MARKET ANALYSIS

NORTH HOLLYWOOD SUMMARY The median sales price for homes in North Hollywood CA for Jan 13 to Mar 13 was $374,500. This represents an increase of 15.2%, or $49,500, compared to the prior quarter and an increase of 24.8% compared to the prior year. Sales prices have depreciated 14.9% over the last 5 years in North Hollywood. The average listing price for North Hollywood homes for sale on Trulia was $537,163 for the week ending Apr 24, which represents a decline of 0.8%, or $4,561, compared to the prior week and an increase of 0.1%, or $327, compared to the week ending Apr 03. Average price per square foot for North Hollywood CA was $288, an increase of 28% compared to the same period last year. 30

RETAIL Beyond its proximity to the major regional malls and the dozens of high-end boutiques in the Arts District, NoHo14 also provides its residents with quick access to a wide variety of major retailers. The property is only 0.6 miles from a Walgreens, 07 miles from a Ralphs, 1.3 miles from a Target and a Macy’s, and 1.6 miles from a Sears. As such, the property boasts unparalleled nearness to both retail centers and independent retailers. EMPLOYMENT NoHo benefits from its proximity to a wide variety of major employers. In the immediate area (within 5 miles) are CBS, Disney, Technicolor, Shell Oil, Warner Bros., Universal City Studios Productions, Crane Aerospace & Electronics, Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, ABC Family, Sherman Oaks Hospital, and Kaiser Foundation Hospital Panorama City. As such, residents in NoHo have easy access to myriad jobs in the entertainment industry, the health case sector, and with high-tech electronic firms. Additionally, North Hollywood offers easy commutes to major nearby employment hubs in Glendale, Burbank, and Downtown Los Angeles. RETAIL CENTERS In addition to the plenty shopping options in the NoHo Arts District, residents in NoHo benefit from being within 4 miles of four key retail centers. The asset is just 2.7 miles from Universal City Walk, 3.4 miles from Fashion Square in Sherman Oaks, 3.7 miles from Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, and 3.9 miles from Burbank Town Center. These retail centers offer residents easy access to Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Banana Republic, an Apple Store, Ralph’s, CVS, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Radio Shack, and an AMC Theater. SCHOOLS North Hollywood lies within the Los Angeles Unified School District. Within 1.3 miles of the property there are seven elementary schools and three high schools. In addition there are several well-regarded public schools in North Hollywood, including the Harvard-Westlake School and the Oakwood School. HOSPITALS NoHo benefits from its proximity to several highly-respected and renowned hospitals. Most notably, Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center is located under 2 miles from the property. Additionally, Kaiser Foundation Hospital Panorama City, Pacifica Hospital of the Valley, Valley Presbyterian Hospital, Mission Community Hospital, and Hollywood Community Hospital are all located within 6 miles from the asset. Beyond providing excellent care, these hospitals also serve as major employers for Warner Center residents. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES NOHO is less than 3 miles from Los Angeles Valley College (19,951 students), less than 8 miles from Los Angeles City College (19,873 students) and UCLA (38,550 students). Additionally, NOHO is a short commute (nearly 10 miles) from California State University—Northridge (35,446 students). NOHO provides residents with easy access to a variety of both regional and world-class secondary education. PARKS AND RECREATION Beyond the countless cultural amenities provided by the NoHo Arts District, including over 20 theaters and numerous art galleries and festivals, residents also enjoy close proximity to ten separate parks and recreation centers. Additionally, NoHo is less than 15 miles from Downtown Los Angeles, allowing residents to enjoy the countless cultural amenities contained therein. 31

EMPLOYMENT

RETAIL

SCHOOLS

RETAIL CENTERS

HOSPITALS

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

PARKS AND RECREATION

PIPELINE APARTMENTS

PIPELINE CONDOMINIUMS

5. PRECEDENTS

The students looked for precedents of Suburban Transformations as a part of their research on the Redevelopment of the North Hollywood site. The purpose of the precedent studies was to give them a guide for the design and planning of the redevelopment site. The students inquired into a variety of projects both from Los Angeles and as well as from other regions of the United States. For the Los Angeles part, the students had direct exposure to the sites and for the other regions, they did a pedagogical research on the precedents. They inquired into different approaches and incentives that have transformed an undeveloped suburb into an inviting destination. Their extensive research brought some outstanding attributes that apply pretty much to the context of North Hollywood. ADDISON CIRCLE (source:RTKL)

Addison Circle is a mixed used Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project in Addison, Texas that combines residential, office and retail space, provides many forms of entertainment, and conveniently connects to Dallas Area Rapid Transit lines. Initially, Addison was an undeveloped urban infill near the toll road and transit station. (Image 01) Site Addison, First ring north suburb of Dallas Texas, USA (Image 02) Planning The Town undertook a community visioning process to guide its remaining growth and infill opportunities. The 2020 Vision focused on two mixeduse development opportunities; a neighborhood and a town center. The Town updated its Comprehensive Plan to accommodate this Vision. The Town pursued a proactive implementation strategy aimed at attracting developers to construct this Vision. Development Process and Financing New zoning was approved in 1995 as an Urban Center district. The Town committed $9 million from their general funds over the life of the project; with $4.5 million up-front for phase one infrastructure and public improvements. For this initial city commitment, Columbus agreed to build at least 1500 dwelling units. Remaining $4.5 million is linked to the implementation of the remaining development phases up to 3000 units. The Town agreed to maintain the infrastructure. The Town allowed private utility systems throughout the public rights-of-way. The Town amended building and life-safety codes; and allowed new pedestrian-friendly street standards. Total estimated Private investment was over $500 million. Design The Town has a vision for 2020: Provide distinctive focus for community life and special events; Expand and balance existing housing choices; Promote a mixture of uses and Accommodate retail as support services rather than regional destination. Open space serves as site for special events with interactive fountains, open spaces and walking trails. (Image 04) Addison has improved pedestrian experiences with ntegrated public spaces,

community events venue, and architecture diversity. (Image 05, 06, 07, 08, 09) GAS LAMP QUARTER (Source: The Journal of San Diego History, San Diego Historical Society Quarterly, Spring 1977, Volume23, Number 2)

Situated in San Diego’s Downtown area, the Gaslamp Quarter is a major redevelopment project that has transformed the area into a vibrant commercial district featuring a wide variety of restaurants, entertainment venues, art galleries, urban housing, and upscale specialty retail. Known as the “Historic Heart of San Diego”, the area embodies rich history and an ever-evolving future. Originally a run-down area of San Diego, the Gaslamp Quarter successfully redeveloped into a delightful area that treats its’ visitors to an enjoyable, diverse environment. The Gaslamp Quarter has proved that with the dedication of the community, it is possible to foster greener living while enhancing the original character of the buildings. Site San Diego, California, USA Planning The purpose of the Marina Planned District Ordinance is to establish development controls that will: Create discreet neighborhoods, Encourage new housing, Conserve heritage buildings, Permit mixed-use developments, Provide opportunities for both large- and small-scale development, Guide the location of high-rise development intensity and land use characteristics, Establish strong linkages to the waterfront, Prescribe building mass standards, Establish a strong sense of pedestrian orientation at the street level Design “The Preservation Of The Richness Of Past Development” is the principal objective of the Gaslamp Quarter Planned District. To achieve this principal objective, the following additional objectives were developed for the Gaslamp Quarter: The preservation of this notable area containing landmarks of historic, architectural and aesthetic value and the preservation of other buildings and features that provides continuity with past development. Respect the character of older development nearby in the design of new buildings: New development must be sensitive to those existing buildings typifying the desired character. This does not mean slavish copies of older structures, a sort of Disneyland south, but it does require that new structures incorporate the design features found in the older structures and keep the same bulk and scale relationships. 36

DOWNTOWN SILVER SPRING REDEVELOPMENT (Source: brunerfoundation)

The Downtown Revitalization project located in Silver Spring comprises mostly commercial buildings along with residences and small public spaces, including recreational parks. Site Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland, USA Planning The goals for the redevelopment project include: -Introduce new development in the context of Maryland’s Smart Growth policies with the consensus of major stakeholders -Establish a public-private partnership that will revitalize the Central Business District (CBD) for eastern Montgomery County -Extend and strengthen neighborhoods close to downtown with housing & retail -Create a transit-oriented community, taking advantage of the local Metro station -Use an incentive zoning tool that provides significant opportunities for public involvement Development Development includes purchasing land ($450 million), two public parking structures, a new courthouse, civic building, and renovated Silver Theatre. Since 2000, CBD has leveraged over $2 billion in private investment. Design This mixed-use revitalization of a “first ring” suburban downtown includes: Retail (movie theaters, restaurants, grocery stores and other retail shops), office spaces, multi-family dwelling units near existing neighborhoods of single family homes, civic spaces with public art, fountains and greenery that serve as central public spaces for the downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, four reconstructed main streets with extensive new streetscapes for pedestrianfriendly environments, and safe, attractive and efficient public parking structures. 37

PEARL DISTRICT Pearl district is a redevelopment project that incorporates a diverse blend of art galleries, parks, upscale restaurants, anchor and boutique retailers, creative living options, and an urban population who thrive on its vibrant pulse. The Pearl district was once known as the Northwest Industrial Triangle, a home to dilapidated warehouses, light-industrial buildings and railroad yards.Â Today with the redevelopment efforts, this district has been converted into a thriving mixeduse neighborhood with a variety of housing units, shops, and businesses. Site Portland, Oregon, USA Development Through the 1970s, high vacancy, low rent, and loft spaces attracted artists, galleries, and start-up businesses to the area. In the early 1980s, collaboration between public and private sectors spurred redevelopment. The city established numerous vision and financing plans for downtown and the Pearl District. Residents and community groups organized art/ cultural festivals and formed neighborhood associations. Developers looked to create a vibrant, mixeduse urban community that maintained and enhanced the neighborhood character In the mid-1990s, 34 acres of abandoned rail yards were redeveloped into a series of residential communities, galleries, restaurants, parks, and shops. This brought the Portland Streetcar into Northwest Portland, and is part of a pilot program for sustainable neighborhood development. Design The Pearl District is an area with a high degree of walkability and is very pedestrian friendly with small pocket parks placed within the busy streetscape. It incorporates access to transportation by providing a streetcar that runs through the neighborhood to downtown. The neighborhood highlights green development by uncovering the storm water processes throughout the neighborhood.

SAN PEDRO (Source: Los Angeles Department of City Planning)

Located adjacent to the Port of Los Angeles, the town of San Pedro is characterized by its unique commercial districts and residential neighborhoods with a mix of older historic structures and newer architecture, and many natural and cultural amenities. Site San Pedro, Los Angeles, California, USA Planning The San Pedro Community Plan serves several important purposes: outline a vision for the San Pedro Community Plan’s long-term physical and economic development and community enhancement; provide strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished; establish a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; direct City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that enhance the character of the community, taking advantage of its setting and amenities; and provide the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the Zoning Ordinance, design overlays, development standards, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and area plans. Design The design intends to accommodate much of San Pedro’s projected population increase in the downtown, offering a unique urban lifestyle in a walkable downtown commercial district featuring restaurants, entertainment, shopping, an arts district, and a variety of waterfront amenities including the waterfront promenade, parks and open spaces. A wide range of planning topics— including land use and housing, parks and open space, urban design, infrastructure, mobility, arts and culture, and history— are addressed in the Plan, encompassing the full spectrum of issues related to San Pedro’s physical development. The guiding principle for the design are: Enhance neighborhood character through better development standards, Improve the connection of public and private space through good urban design, Create more small parks, pedestrian districts, and public plazas, Improve mobility and access, Identify a hierarchy of commercial Districts and Centers. 39

LANCASTER BOULEVARD (Source: better! cities&towns)

The Lancaster Boulevard redevelopment project in California has converted a drab, automobile-oriented arterial at the heart of downtown into a lively, pedestrian-friendly place. The project won the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth Achievement Award for overall excellence in 2012 Site Lancaster, California, USA Development Lancaster spent $11.5 million on a project that has so far attracted $130 million in private investment and generated $273 million in economic output, the California Redevelopment Association estimates. Revenues from the downtown area have nearly doubled — up 96 percent — since 2007, the year before revitalization efforts began Design Space for automobiles along the corridor has been drastically reduced. Five lanes of traffic, including a center turn lane, were reduced to two lanes, with a wide, tree-shaded “ramblas,” or public space, in the center of the thoroughfare. A true ramblas was provided for the busiest blocks, with stylistically consistent angle-in parking in place of the ramblas on the outer blocks. The design, with its unusual treelined ramblas are perfect for festivals, farmer’s markets, or just hanging out. New businesses have located on the boulevard and housing units are built or rehabilitated.

CYPRESS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; LINCOLN AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT (Source: City of Cypress)

Located in the City of Cypress, the Lincoln Avenue is a redevelopment project along the major commercial corridors that consists mixed-use and highway-oriented businesses with an additional mix of uses including general commercial, multiple-family residential, single-family residential, and public/semipublic spaces. Site Cypress, Orange County California, USA Development The entire 3 mile length of Lincoln Avenue from Coyote Creek Bridge to Valley View Street has undergone a $6.5 million streetscape improvement as part of a comprehensive revitalization effort to â&#x20AC;&#x153;Rediscover Lincoln. Design The design includes the construction of landscape medians and bowouts; installation of storm drains, decorative street lighting and landscape irrigation systems; and the provision of decorative sidewalls and crosswalks specific locations along Lincoln Avenue. In addition, Specific Plan and an Action Plan Focusing on the Lincoln Avenue Corridor have been adopted to establish specific land use and development standards for future sustainable development. The plans provide a framework for the formulation of various incentives to encourage economic development activity and affordable housing opportunities along the Lincoln Avenue Corridor. 41

6. TRANSPORTATION & ENVIRONMENT

North Hollywood has the incredible potential to challenge Los Angeles’s existing “car is king” paradigm. Featuring multiple bus routes, the North Hollywood Red Line subway station, and the Orange Line bus rapid transit station, North Holly Hollywood is well-positioned to become a transit hub for surrounding residential neighborhoods. The current road network features promising commercial corridors which could offer vibrant street activity, and the roads are slowly being retooled with bike lanes and pedestrian amenities to provide a safer and more inviting experience along them. Yet despite moves towards transit use, bicycling, and walkability, as of 2013 the automobile still dominates. Adequate parking thus must be available, which will influence developer bottom lines. This chapter will discuss the transportation strengths and weaknesses of North Hollywood, and will suggest some general strategies for transforming North Hollywood into a true transitoriented development. More detailed interventions will be provided by each group’s project. CAR DEPENDENCY AND PARKING Los Angeles is known across America for its car culture. “Car is king,” is a common refrain, and it is generally thought that even superior access to transit will struggle to change car dependency. However, this Field Study class believes that North Hollywood could realistically become a place where residents could choose to live without cars, relying instead on the plentiful transit and supplementing with bicycles and car sharing services like Zipcar. Several developers have reported that they also see this potential for a car-free lifestyle, and would be willing to build fewer parking spots than the local standard in a site like North Hollywood near excellent transit. Reduced parking would save on development costs, and would likely succeed with at least residential properties since the area seems to attract young professionals who could likely adapt to using transit or bicycles. However, several developers also commented that that banks would not finance projects with reduced numbers of parking spaces, and so developers feel pressured to include the standard number. It is likely that the evolution of this neighborhood will initially require additional parking garages, but care should be given to how these garages are built. 43

06 44

These figures represent parking requirements and development costs for NoHo as of 2013: Current Conditions and Standards 1 North Hollywood Metro Parking lot : (Image 02) Free On-site Parking – 619 Spaces Paid Reserved On-site Parking – 333 Spaces Meters near Metro lot charge $4 per/day for all-day parking Other meters charge $1/hour Residential: 1 parking spot per bedroom 2 Office: 2 per 1000 SF Retail: 4 per 1000 SF Costs Podium level parking, $11,000 per stall Structured parking above ground, $22,000 per stall Structured parking below ground, $30,000 - $50,000 per stall Suggested Adaptations and Solutions -Build one spot per unit, instead of one per bedroom. -Increase the rate of all-day parking in Metro lots to incentivize the use of transit for the entire journey, from home to work. -“Decouple” parking from residential units, charging for each separately. This gives residents the choice of whether or not to pay for the spot. Structured parking reduces both aesthetic quality and safety along the street wall where it is built. Use pedestal parking or wrap parking garages with buildings whenever possible. Use greenery and artistic surface treatments to integrate garages into the street wall. Do not allow parking garages to line primary corridors (Lankershim, Magnolia, Chandler). (Image 03, 04, 05) -Plan for eventual parking lot redevelopment, e.g., a top floor being converted to a community garden or the entire garage transformed into a building. -Consider creating a parking district, which manages parking spaces on a neighborhood instead of building scale. Redevelopment in Bethesda, Maryland has used parking districts to successfully balance parking supply 3 and demand to better facilitate walkable neighborhoods. Ultimately, changing car-dependent behaviors takes time and will require interventions that reach far beyond the number of parking spaces constructed. However, by continuing support “car is king,” by building numerous parking spaces, all parties involved in the development of this area are implicitly inviting more cars in, undermining the benefits of rich transit access in this area and increasing congestion. If developers cannot secure private financing to develop with reduced parking, then the public side may have to find a way to provide or guarantee the necessary loans in order to enable the vision of a truly transitoriented development. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION North Hollywood features a very strong cluster of mass transit—a unique amenity in the San Fernando Valley which should make this area especially desirable. North Hollywood is the last stop on the Red subway line (Image 06), which opened in 2000 and connects to Downtown Los Angeles. It is also the first stop on the Orange bus rapid transit line, which opened in 2005 and serves the western part of the Valley (Image 07). Multiple buses also connect in North 4 Hollywood. With trains operating from 4:30am to midnight, every 5 to 10 minutes, this site offers excellent transit access to job centers along Metro system and can viably serve as an alternative to car-commuting for residents of

09 09

NoHo who work along the subway routes, and vice versa. Ridership numbers are increasing, and from 2011 to 2013 daily system-wide rail boardings increased by 6 22%. Developers in North Hollywood should consider the transit a major amenity which will help sell their developments to new tenants who want less car-dependent lifestyles. Additionally, developers of retail should note the great potential for foot traffic that accompanies a transit hub. In 2011, an estimated 12,409 people boarded and another 12,891 disembarked from the Orange Line at North Hollywood Station. An addition 15,765 boarded and 15,826 disembarked at the rail station, for a total of 56,891 potential consumers passing through the site 7 each day. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Metro recognizes that the property surrounding its stations provides unique development opportunities. Because the property that Metro owns has excellent access to transit, the City has been willing to approve denser developments, with fewer parking spaces than usual, with the intention that residents of such developments should be able to walk, take transit, or cycle to the majority of their destinations. This particular style of development, only possible along major transportation links, is called “transit-oriented development”, or TOD. In 1994 Metro established a Joint Venture program in order to work with developers to transform Metro-owned land around rail stations into TODs. The general procedure is as follows: Metro releases an RFP for development on land adjacent to a station. From the responses, Metro selects a development proposal based on a combination of achievability, ability to meet local land use and economic development goals, and ability to provide reasonable financial return to Metro. Developer-provided public benefits, which have been previously outlined by local planning jurisdictions, may include the provision of affordable housing, quality public spaces, and resident-serving retail, as well as the refurbishment of historic buildings. Rather than sell their land, Metro often offers a long-term lease to developers. The Metro land in North Hollywood site includes 15.5 acres and 8 will be offered as a 99-year lease. The last RFP was released in 2006, and Lowe Enterprises was selected as the development partner. The market downturn of 2008/2009 halted the project. (Image 08) Successful joint venture TODs thus far have included Del Mar on the Gold Line, Wilshire & Vermont on the Purple and Red Lines, and Hollywood & Vine on 9 the Red Line. (Image 09, 10, 11) STREET NETWORK, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE AMENITIES Calming the streets of NoHo is vital to the success of any redevelopment efforts. Besides carrying vehicular traffic, NoHo’s streets serve many functions. Parallel parking along the streets serves short-stay shoppers and buffers pedestrians on sidewalks from traffic on roads. Bicycle lanes protect cyclists. Medians give pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing wide boulevards. Whimsical crosswalks alert visitors to the arts theme of the district. Street trees and landscaping bring nature into the city, as well as perform essential drainage functions. The buildings and businesses lining the streets give the area its character, aesthetic, and energy. Sidewalks with street furniture offer places for pedestrians to walk, linger, window shop, socialize, and dine.

NoHo, like many places in California, features several wide boulevards intended to allow cars to move as quickly as possible. Streets in NoHo are 80’ wide at some points, spanning up to four 12’-wide travel lanes plus a turn lane and parking lanes. The City of LA is working on a set of design guidelines to transform city streets to “complete streets” to create a safe, pleasant, and economically successful urban environment. Pedestrians are and cars are given equal priority, and many strategies are implemented to actually slow cars down to increase pedestrian safety. The key streets on which attention should be focused to ensure success of any redevelopment efforts include: (Image 12 - street map) Lankershim Boulevard This historic boulevard runs diagonally through the site, from northwest to southeast. The Orange Line station is on its western side, and the Red Line station across from it on its eastern side. Generally around 70’ wide, with two lanes in each direction, it is a main thoroughfare through the district and should be given ample attention by developers. A recent traffic study suggested that one 10 northbound lane could be removed to make way for bicycle lanes. Chandler Boulevard This east-west street forms the southern edge of the Metro parking lots slated for redevelopment. It currently lacks character, with few buildings still standing along it, and will be greatly influenced by the development which occurs along it between Lankershim and Vineland. Chandler has great potential to create a bicycle link from North Hollywood Park to the existing Chandler Bike path, which continues on to Burbank. Magnolia Boulevard East-west running Magnolia Boulevard’s great strength is that is has been able to maintain some of its historic character. Magnolia also offers a strong connection into and through North Hollywood Park. Still, Magnolia is extremely wide and for the most part unfriendly to pedestrians. 47

16 48

The Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Congress for New Urbanism published Designing New Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach in 2010. While Los Angeles has not officially adopted these guidelines, the City is aware of them and plans to adopt similar in the near future. Developers should consider these types of street improvements as investments that will result in more a more livable, economically successful neighborhood. 11 Some key recommendations include: Sidewalks Minimum total width: 12’ Edge, furnishing, bus stops: 4’ Clear pedestrian travel way: 6’ Frontage zone of building: 2’ Pedestrian “bulbouts” at crosswalks allow for shorter crossing distances Crosswalks Artistic painting can call attention to pedestrian crossing (Image 13) Signalization should be long enough for crossing Medians (Image 14) If used as pedestrian refuge: 6’ minimum If used to protect left turn: 10’ lane plus median Vehicle Travel Lanes Recommended width: 10’ – 11’ Narrower widths will slow traffic Parallel parking Width: 7’ Parallel parking protects pedestrians from fast moving traffic Bike Lanes Width: 5’ – 6’ Active Ground Floor Uses (Image 15, 16, 17, 18) Main thoroughfares should be lined with “active” first floor uses (retail, restaurants, dance studios), windows, and doors to encourage engagement with the street.

ENVIRONMENT The transportation network can play an important part in environmental protection. Los Angeles’s car dependency, combined with its topology, has created valleys of intense air pollution (Image 19). Any moves that can be made to encourage people towards opting for walking, bicycling, or riding transit rather than using personal vehicles will reduce total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thus begin to reduce emissions. The excess of paved and built surfaces in Los Angeles can cause problems in both wet and dry weather. Los Angeles also has very real storm water runoff concerns. Buildings, roads, and parking lots cover the city with impervious surfaces, and rainstorms create a barrage of water which sewers have difficulty accommodating. Street trees, swales, and landscaping can be used to absorb storm water runoff. (Image 20) Impervious surfaces absorb and reradiate heat on hot days, creating “urban heat islands”.12 Sidewalk landscaping and street trees can do much to mitigate this problem by adding shade and improving air quality. Lush street trees and landscaping can also improve the less quantifiable aesthetics of a neighborhood, and can be strategically placed to demarcate pathways to larger green spaces like North Hollywood Park. (Image 21)

1. Red Line Map and Stations, Lost Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, www.metro.net/riding/maps/red-line 2. Summary of Parking Regulations, City of Los Angeles, September 2002, netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.NSF 3. Bethesda Parking District Map, Montgomery County Government, Jan2001, montgomerycountymd.gov/content/gis/images/gallery/bethpark.pdf. 4. North Hollywood Connnections, Los Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/blt_NoHo.pdf. 5. Red and Purple Line Schedules, Los Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/images/802.pdf. 6. Ridership Statistics, Los Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/. 7. Joint Development Project Sites Average Weekday Ridership Data, Los Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/joint_development/images/JDP_Ridership_Data_Table.pdf. 8. Joint Development Program, Los Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/. 9. Joint Development Program Fact Sheet, Los Angeles Metro, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/joint_development/ images/joint_dev_project_fact_sheet.pdf. 10. Lankershim Blvd Bike Lane - Happening? Noho Arts District, February 19, 2013, http://www.nohoartsdistrict.com/index.php/north-hollywoodnews/item/1651-news-lankershim-blvd-bike-lane-happening#.UZE33LVQGUJ. 11. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, Institution of Transportation Engineers, 2010, http://www.naturewithin. info/Roadside/ITE%20Walkable%20Urban%20Streets.pdf (accessed May 13, 2013).

7. NOHO+ Proposal by Susie Chung Criscimagna, Sahjabin Kabir, Holly Masek CONTEXT The study site around the North Hollywood Metro station represents an underdeveloped area on the cusp of becoming a great urban neighborhood. It has the potential to act as a model for adapting Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sprawling, car-centric suburbs to denser, transit-oriented living with thriving commercial, cultural, environmental, and residential urban fabric. But to catalyze this transition, public and private development stakeholders must find a way to leverage the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing assets to nurture a fresh, compelling, and resilient neighborhood. NoHo in 2013 is a neighborhood of many assests: The North Hollywood Red Line subway and Orange Line bus rapid transit stations have seen ridership increase by 22% from 2011 to 2013, and the trend is predicted to continue.(Image 01) About 27,000 boardings and 27,000 disembarkments occur at the site each day between the two lines, bringing substantial foot traffic through the area. The Red Line connects to job centers in downtown LA, saving transit commuters from congested and unpredictable car commutes, and diminishing the need for neighborhood residents to own cars. (Image 02)

08 52

The area boasts a history of vibrant commercial boulevards dating from the 1920s. While these corridors have changed in character over the years, both Lankershim and Magnolia still feature beautiful historic facades and theaters. (Image 03) NoHo attracts the young and productive “creative class” that cities often 1 credit with bringing new life to old neighborhoods. Artists, actors, dancers, filmmakers and the like already live and work in NoHo. Dance, martial arts, and post-production film studios are common. (Image 04) The City has already tried to leverage the naturally occurring artistic 2 community into a branded district, “NoHo”, and a business improvement district. (Image 05) The area also boasts formal arts institutions, including the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and The Art Institute of California. (Image 06) The area is close to to Burbank, a movie industry hub and employment center, and is directly connected to it by the 2.5 mile Chandler Bikeway. North Hollywood boasts a substantial 60-acre green space, North Hollywood Park, which unusual in this area. The park includes playing fields and a community center. (Image 07) Attractive multi-family development has lately been springing up near North Hollywood’s metro Station. Rental vacancy rates for multifamily housing in 3 the San Fernando Valley overall are low, hovering between 4 and 6%. (Image 08) However, despite these myriad strengths, NoHo has still failed to take off as a thriving new neighborhood. The 15.6 acre Metro-owned parking lots surrounding the subway station were slated for a massive TOD redevelopment in 2007 with Lowe and Forest City, but the deal fell apart and the lots remain empty (Image 09). NoHo 14, a flashy condo complex, offered luxury ownership in a moderate rental area, and went bankrupt (Image 10). Lankershim is lined with unattractive car repair and sales lots in many places (Image 11). The huge park is largely underprogrammed and underused (Image 12). Poor market conditions following the 2008 recession can be held responsible for many setbacks, but it is clear that developers will need both vision and a realistic understanding of the market in order to succeed in transforming North Hollywood.

11 53

14.1 54

THE VISION: NOHO+ Developers should focus on building on the successful trends already happening in NoHoâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;adding key ingredients to draw new residents and visitors to the area. NoHo should become a neighborhood where one can live in high quality and affordable homes, shop and dine in locally-owned stores and restaurants, work at arts and film related business, stroll on busy and interesting sidewalks, watch performances, and enjoy beautiful green spaces. While the target residential demographic might be young creatives, the amenities within the neighborhood will be rich enough to serve a range of ages and backgroundsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; including families living in residential neighborhoods surrounding the site and independent seniors living in existing co-op housing. THE NOHO+ VISION INCLUDES FOUR KEY GOALS: 1. Create a Destination In order to jump-start development, NoHo must offer appropriate anchors early on to establish its uniqueness and desirability. -A prominently located Film and Television Incubator Space, modeled on the Cambridge Innovation Center, will offer editing bays, shared equipment, preview rooms, etc. to small film companies--supporting an energetic cluster of creative minds, and offering walk-to-work opportunities for area residents. (Image 13, 13.1) -A central plaza surrounding the North Hollywood subway station will become a buzzing active space of outdoor cafes, farmers markets, and performances. (Image 14, 14.1) -Anchor retail, including a City Target, will service commuters and residents and activate the edges of the central plaza. (Image 15) -A unique alley system, which strategically routes past existing plazas and new live-work artists housing, invites visitors to explore and discover hidden gems of the neighborhood.(Image 16)

13.1

15 55

18.1

18.2

2. Reclaim the Streets for People Attractive and safe streets are vital to encouraging pedestrians to linger and enjoy the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s amenities. NoHoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s streets must be retooled to offer both pedestrians and bicyclists a safer and more pleasant experience. (Image 17) -By reducing car lane widths and lowering speed limits, reduced travel speeds at key intersections will improve safety for all modes of transport. Pedestrian amenities will be improving, including providing better crosswalks, landscaped medians, and longer crossing times. -Bike lanes will be added throughout the district, and the Chandler Bikeway from Burbank will be extended through to North Hollywood Park. -Well-lit and active streets will have ground-floor retail, restaurants, studios, and gallery spaces that create safe and interesting experiences. Second floor step backs provide verandas overlooking the street and another level of activity. -Sculptured Gallery Spaces/Art Walk: To draw foot traffic into the park along Magnolia Boulevard, shipping containers or other inexpensive structures can be repurposed as small illuminated gallery spaces. (Image 18.1, 18.2)

17 56

3. Enhance the Arts The existing NoHo Arts theme will be enhanced and expanded. Arts can be more thoroughly integrated into the physical and cultural offerings of the neighborhood to enhance the experience of both residents and visitors. (Image 19.1, 19.2) -New artist live-work housing, with ground floor gallery and studio spaces and affordability options, will be added to the neighborhood. (Image 19.3)

19.1

19.2

19.3

20.0

-Colorful and interesting lighting, evocative of theatrical productions, will animate the neighborhood at night. -The arts community will be encouraged to perform publicly whenever possible, animating plazas and parks. -Visual art will be incorporated into the built environment, as murals, sculptures, and even crosswalks. (Image 19.4) 19.4

20.1

4. Support Health and Wellness In a transit-oriented development, reduced car dependency offers numerous environmental and physical health benefits, including reduced air pollution, and more opportunities for exercise through walking and biking. Health and wellness should be celebrated throughout the district. -The alley network should be considered as urban trails for walking, running, and exploring. -North Hollywood Park and the plaza will be further activated with ropes courses, yoga classes, and dance classes led by neighborhood studios. -A network of lush street trees and storm gardens will help to manage storm water runoff, provide shade, and mitigate urban heat island effects. They will also provide visual connections throughout the district to North Hollywood Park. (Image 20.0, 20.1) 57

PHASING Development is expected to occur over 18 years, in three phases. The first phase will establish the central â&#x20AC;&#x153;destinationâ&#x20AC;? of the district around the Metro station, bringing mid-high density housing, retail, and incubator offices adjacent to the plaza. The first phase will also see the initial stages of neighborhood-wide interventions such as the alley network and street trees. The next two phases will add more housing, retail, and office spaces and extend amenities throughout the neighborhoods. The distribution of rental housing, condos, retail, and office use over the phases was decided in response to current market conditions and predictions about future market trends. Note that the first phase does not include condo development as the current demand for homeownership is low, but the second and third phases include condo development as demand is expected to rise by then.

20.2 58

Phase 1: Create a Center, Reclaim NoHo for People, Not Cars (Image 20.2) Setting NoHo up for success with employment and retail anchors and a central neighborhood plaza. Adapting streets to create a pedestrian-oriented environment. Development in Phase 1: 2,100 Units of Multifamily Rental Housing 150,000 SF Retail/Studio/Gallery Spaces 150,000 SF Incubator and Office Space Total: 2.3 million SF + A Central Plaza A new plaza surrounding the Red Line subway station becomes a central and adaptable space for farmers markets, public performances, lighting installations, pop-up restaurants, and more. Near the BRT station, a historic train station is converted into a cafe and bike service shop, and bike parking is added. + Film and Television Incubator Space New anchor employment offers walk-to-work opportunities for the NoHo’s creative class residents, drawing new workers and energy to the area. Screenings can occur on the adjacent new plaza. + City Target and Ground Floor Retail New anchor retail, sidewalk cafes, gallery spaces, and restaurants activate the first floors edging the plaza and serve both residents and commuters using the stations. + Activated Boulevards Lankershim Blvd., Magnolia Blvd., and Chandler Blvd. all benefit from restaurants and retail activating first floors. + Lighting Interventions Projections, LEDs, spotlights, and dramatic signage reinforce the arts theme of the district and add a theatrical flair at night. + Improved Pedestrian and bike Amenities Narrower roadways slow traffic to improve pedestrian safety. Added bike lanes offer new options for cyclists. Medians, bulbouts, and better signalization improve crossing safety for pedestrians. + Alley Network Building off the existing alleys and plaza serving the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, a web of alleys begins spreading through areas of the neighborhood just off the main boulevards. These “urban trails” invite users to discovery galleries, hidden plazas, and murals. + Gallery and Studio Spaces As the neighborhood develops, existing studios in older buildings may be redeveloped. These should be replaced with ground floor studio and gallery spaces as subsidized rents to avoid pricing out these unique neighborhood assets. + Magnolia Art Walk into North Hollywood Park To draw foot traffic into the park, shipping containers or other inexpensive structures can be repurposed as small illuminated gallery spaces. These will line Magnolia Boulevard where it cuts across the park. + Street Tree and Storm Garden Network Frequent trees and storm gardens on key boulevards manage stormwater runoff, provide shade, mitigate heat island effects, and offer wayfinding to North Hollywood Park. + Housing for New Residents New housing will be dense, multi-family rental properties with 20% affordable units. To reinforce the TOD, housing will be built with one parking space per unit (rather than per bedroom). Parking will be decoupled from the unit--meaning that it is paid for separately so that those living without cars will have a reduced cost burden. 59

20.3

21 60

Phase 2: Reinforce Boulevards and Arts Living (Image 20.3) Continue positive development along Lankershim, reinforce commitment to arts. 1,500 Units of Multifamily Rental Housing 600 Condos 130,000 SF Retail/Studio/Gallery Spaces 125,000 SF of Office Space Total: 2.3 million SF + Continued Alley Network and Housing Development Alleys continue south, coinciding with the development of live-work artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; spaces, and will be activated by lighting and murals. + Additional Activities in North Hollywood Park Ropes courses, dance classes, will draw people into the park. + Additional Office Uses Additional, more traditional office spaces offer walk-to-work opportunities for new residents. Offices can also be reached by Orange or Red Lines. Phase 3: Build on Success Continue redevelopment with dense housing to west and north. Development in Phase 2: 1,225 Units of Multifamily Rental Housing 700 Condominium Units 125,000 SF of Office Space Total: 2 million SF + Continued Alley Network and Housing Development Alleys migrate east to west, spreading into the existing neighborhood fabric and making more connections into North Hollywood Park. Redevelopment of dilapidated buildings and vacant lots along the alleys continues to improve the building stock in the neighborhood. Final Build Out: 66% Multifamily Rental Residential 4.1 million SF, 5,375 units 22% Condo 1.5 million SF, 1,400 units 7% Office/Incubator 450,000 SF 5% Retail/Restaurants/Studios/Galleries 300,000 SF Total: 6.2 million sf FAR: 4.2 (3.9 gross) (Image 21, 22)

22 61

01 62

DEVELOPMENT DETAILS AND FINANCIALS (Chart 01) The project involves a wide mix of multifamily rentals, condos, retail, and office. Given the existing low-moderate demographic of the area and the vision to attract more young and young-at-heart professionals in the creative industries, the rents are kept purposefully moderate, landing at or a little under existing market rates. Additionally, there is a large portion of studio and 1-bedroom units that have low square footages, averaging 400 SF and 600 SF, respectively. This responds to demand for smaller spaces for lower rent, allowing for more affordable rents and higher densities. The per square foot rents are higher than the $2.25 per square foot average market rents, at $2.75/SF and $2.50/ SF, respectively, but the total rent per apartment is below market, at $1,100 and $1,500 per month. In addition, parking is decoupled from housing, retail, and office spaces to incentivize residents, workers, and visitors to take public transportation or other non-vehicular modes of transportation. The decoupling also allows for residents to save on parking expenses, by charging $1,300 per space per year as an additional optional fee. Decoupling parking from other uses would also provide the NoHo+ development with the latitude to reduce parking requirements. As such, parking construction would decrease from 1 space per bedroom to 1 space per unit for new housing and from 3 spaces per 1000 SF of retail to 2 spaces per 1000 SF.

Affordable housing and retail In addition to keeping rents of the market apartments low, 20% of the apartment units will be affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of area median income (AMI). These units would therefore average $1,052 per unit or $1.39 per square foot per month, which is almost half of the market rates. These apartments qualify for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which is available as a 4% credit or a 9% credit. The 4% credit provides about 30% of the construction cost of the units in equity, whereas the 9% credit provides about 70% of the construction cost. While the 9% credit provides a greater subsidy, the process of obtaining the tax credits is competitive, whereas the 4% credit is non-competitive and can be used immediately. As such, the units available to households earning 60% of AMI will be constructed using the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit subsidy, which amounts to about $56 million for the 1,075 units. (Chart 02 - LIHTC) It is also important to the NoHo+ vision to keep retail businesses in the neighborhood diverse, interesting, and locally owned. The retail spaces include traditional storefronts as well as galleries and studio spaces for the residents in the arts and entertainment industries. As such, 20% of the retail spaces will be available at a discount to foster NoHoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique arts and culture identity. These spaces will rent for $1 per square foot per month, half the rate of the market rate spaces, which will lease for $2 per square foot. Development costs The entire NoHo+ development will include 6.2 million square feet of new housing, retail, and office space. With an average FAR of 4.2, the development will require 34 acres of land. The existing parking lot adjacent to the North Hollywood Metro station provides 12.5 acres of land, and the remainder of the development will consist of infill development within about 10 blocks of the Metro station. Market rates for land are about $160 per square foot, but the development seeks to obtain the Metro parking lot land for a reduced price of $110 per square foot. Since the NoHo+ development would locate a large amount of new housing in the area, increase ridership, rebuild the 1,100 existing spaces , and provide a large share of affordable housing, the Metro department may be willing to agree to a lower land price. A land lease may be preferable to Metro, in which case $110 per square feet in ownership is equivalent to a 100year land lease of $8.80 per square foot per year at an 8% interest rate.

04 64

The total development cost for the entire development of 6.2 million square feet plus an additional 3.4 million square feet of parking is $1.9 billion. In addition to the land costs detailed above, the development costs included: Construction hard costs: Multifamily rental: $180/SF Condo: $205/SF Retail: $140/SF Office: $200/SF Construction soft costs: 20% of hard costs Approval fees: $6/SF Parking construction costs: Above-ground parking structure: $11,000/SF Under-ground parking structure: $45,000/SF Contingency: 6% of subtotal Total development costs are shown in table (Chart 03 - Assumptions), along with other cost and operating assumptions. Over the 18-year period, the NoHo+ development yields an unleveraged IRR of 10.6%. Leveraging with a maximum loan-to-value ratio of 70%, 30 year amortization, and 8% interest rate, the leveraged before-tax IRR is 17.2%. After taxes, the IRR lands at 11.8%. (Chart 04 - IRR) A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effect of a smaller or greater land subsidy from Metro. If the subsidy for the Metro land were increased so that the land cost was only $25/SF, instead of $110/SF as had been assumed, the after-tax IRR increases to 12.3%. If the Metro land were available only at the market rate of $160/SF, the after tax IRR decreases to 11.5%. It appears that the Metro subsidy does not have a great effect on the total development cost and the IRR over the 18-period. While the overall IRR is relatively low, a public-private partnership may be able to reduce the overall risk and make the project more attractive to developers who have the vision to leverage the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing assets into a fresh, compelling, and resilient neighborhood. 1. The Rise of the Creative Class, Florida, Richard, accessed May 13, 2013, http://www.creativeclass.com/richard_florida/books/the_rise_of_the_creative_class. 2. NoHo Business Improvement District, NoHo Business Improvement District, accessed May 13, 2013, http://nohobid.com/. 3. Multifamily Market Forecast 2012 Report, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate Economics, 2012, http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/lusk/casden/pdfs/ multifamily-report-2012.pdf, pg 23.

8. NORTH HOLLYWOOD CIRCLE Proposal by Felix Luong and Thomas Schneider North Hollywood’s town center sits at the junction of the subway to downtown LA and the bus lines serving the San Fernando Valley. It is expected to receive the greatest amount of growth over the next twenty years of any of the suburban nodes in the City of Los Angeles. The goal of this field study is to create a successful concept plan for the town center over a 20 year period. The site area is surrounded by parking lots, vast streets, boulevards and minimal pedestrian activity. With the Bus and Metro hubs, the site merely serves as a transitional space with no other function. Within proximity of the site lays an under utilized park and arts district, a few sporadic commercial boutiques, lots of traffic and wide streets that are surrounded by residential neighborhoods in all directions. The current market condition in North Hollywood can be described as being difficult. NOHO’s office market has a vacancy rate of 15.5% and experienced in Q1/13 a negative absorption of -10.702 sf. Costar’s market report also shows that NOHO’s retail market is experiencing since five consecutive quarters negative abortion figures. NOHO’s condo market is also having difficulties and many initially planned condo buildings got converted into apartment houses until market conditions will improve. The only segment that is currently showing strong demand in NOHO is the apartment sector. NOHO’s apartment sector currently has a vacancy level of less than 4% and experiences constantly increasing apartment rents with positive absorption numbers.

Current mood at Lankershim Boulevard: wide streets, fast traffic, minor street art, no bike lanes.

Current face of North Hollywood Park

Current housing types that are developing in NOHO with increased density and FAR averaging at 3-5.

Precendents that show positive public realm developments and creation of hybrid public and private aspects. Squares, streets and surface improvements

Superkilen, Copenhagen

Painted Bike Lanes, Copenhagen

Bike Lane separation, Copenhagen

Superkilen, Copenhagen

Street section of the park’s extended paths and side walk

Better and safer pedestrian connections

Parking maintained and serves as barrier

4-way lane size decrease

Bike Lane placement

CHANDLER BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT

Street section of Lankershim Boulevard displaying traffic condition, parking barrier, bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalk.

2013 ULI Winner Street Development

Given NOHOs challenging market conditions we believe that only an ambitious redevelopment proposal will be able create enough demand to revitalize this area and to turn it into a thriving new town center. In order to achieve this goal, we created a retail concept that on one side serves the daily needs of the neighborhood and on the other draws shoppers from further away to the site. One potential anchor of such a concept could be a medium/large food market similar to the Trader Joe’s chain. We also propose to have a community of favored local California food chains that can serve the passing commuter, daytime office workers, after school bodies, and the district of NOHO. Besides the retail concept, we also saw the necessity to revitalize the unwelcoming and underutilized park by demolishing the existing old structures and replacing them with more attractive park elements such as adding a small pond, outdoor theater and designated recreation areas for picnics, jogs and relaxation. The most important factor is to build a sensible connection between the park, residences and the new square center. In order to achieve this goal and to create a direct visibility of the park from the new center, we decided to expand the park by a half block towards the bus line. Roof structures would also be implemented along the main path and culminate in the central “square” serving as parasols for public activity, gatherings, farmers market, pop-up retail, square rallies, congregation, events or even just to sit down. 69

Metropol Parasol, Barcelona

Redofzell B33 Overpass, Germany

Cityscape by Arne Quinze, Brussels

Centro Abierto De Actividades Ciudadanas, Cordoba

Bellevue Park, Washington

Arcadia Bridge, Los Angeles

Santa Caterina Market, Barcelona

Central Park, New York

Grevesmuhlen A20 Overpass, Germany

Market dels Encants, Barcelona

Tanner Spring Park, Portland

High Line, New York Ecological Arts and Crafts Market, Laguna del Negro Ixtapa

Beijing Olympic Park, China

Oslo Vigeland Sculpture Park, Norway

Batman Warner Brothers, DC Comics

Spiderman Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures, Marvel Comics

Wreck-it Ralph Walt Disney, Columbia Pictures, Nintendo, Capcom, Atari

Transformers Paramount Pictures, Hasbro, Warner Brothers

Buzz Light Year Walt Disney, Pixar

Iron Man Paramount Pictures, Marvel Comics, Walt Disney Studios

Star Wars Lucas Films, Lucas Arts

Jurassic Park Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment

Proposal for North Hollywood Parks, USA With the development of the new center, the project is also positioned to enlighten the immediate residences and workforce that encounter the site on daily commutes or walks through their neighborhood. Residents should be entitled to nice parks and public space that they can call their community. Street improvements will be ushered from east to west and north to south establishing safe bike lanes, green streets, and controlled traffic. The communal vision and hopes would be that the entire district of NOHO can provide safe and thorough recreation for residents on their evening walk to the park, daily 10 mile cycle ride around the community or city marathon looping in a full circle. In our grand business attempt to further attract the greater Angelenos and all tourists to our site (which would significantly support our retail and popularity of the site), we envisage the installation of a “Hollywood” theme sculpture park that goes from the park through to the new city center. By working with Hollywood’s finest blockbusters, the site can be a platform where the community, consumers and businesses can come together. This sculpture park could become the new landmark and tourist attraction not only for LA, but even globally. Since it will be a free open park, it will be a much more affordable tourist attraction than Universal Studios. This could draw a significant number of attention to our site and help support the growth of the North Hollywood Circle.

RESIDENTIAL

RETAIL

OFFICES

INSTITUTIONAL

PARKING

STREET SCAPE

PARK

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

BUSINESS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

EDUCATION COMMUNITY IDENTITY RESIDENTIAL

PARK BUSINESS

RESIDENTIAL

ARTS

CULTURE RESIDENTIAL RETAIL

North Hollywood is lacking a communal identity. With the proximity to many dispersed segments of retail, arts, culture and parks, the NOHO CIRCLE aims at linking and rejuvenating relationships back to the community. By developing better streetscape and decreasing car speeds, bike lanes and sidewalks can belong to lively outdoor activity.

OFFICES INSTITUTIONAL PARKING STREET SCAPE PARK

Full development turnout with over 7 million square feet in 11 years. Square foot breakdown can be found highlighted on the Assumptions Summary chart.

PHASE 1 PROGRAM RETAIL CORE Comprise of favored, trendy and successful California chains in food and retail.

RESIDENTIAL RETAIL OFFICES INSTITUTIONAL PARKING STREET SCAPE PARK

Aerial view of the retail new center, central square and park extension. Roof structures serve has a covered continous public zone with sustainable features.

Aerial view of the new retail center. Parasols serve as buffers and transient objects that provide for commuters, consumers and the natural environment.

Northeast birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye overview of the entire NOHO CIRCLE 11 year turn out development with the 170 highway in foreground and the Verdugo Mountains in the background.

Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye view overlooking the new retail core, uppper deck housing units and roof structures. They embrace the new sculture park, square, and metro station while stretching towards the east and west ends of Chandler Boulevard.

North Hollywood Circle will be an urbanized park with blockbuster sculptures, friendly local chains, and inviting green space. Commuters, visitors and residences will be able to enjoy a diverse spectacle.

Roof structures provide a secondary flexible space that can be tailored to any event such as farmers market, holiday gatherings, or any general public space. The parasols have sustainable capabilities to collect water and shade vegetation or carry solar panels for lighting the park at night.

The iconic blockbuster scultures can entertain, accompany, inspire and serve as a playful gesture in the community. Not to mention, great publicity for the retail center and the city of North Hollywood.

Corner of Lankershim and Magnolia greeting entrance with lush greens, roof shading and Batman.

The North Hollywood Circle envisions an environment that would represent a cultural mix of community, business, and icons in its landscapes.

Apartment view towards North Hollywood Park. Green roofs above the retail spaces provide terraces and garden space.

Summary Pro Forma - Project North Hollywood Year 0 2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Phase II 2019

2020

2021

2022

Rental Housing For-Sale Housing Rental Housing Office/Commercial Retail Hotel Underground Parking Structured Parking

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2023

2024

$4,121,875 $74,100,000 $742,967 $853,478 $593,992 $0 $2,559,432 $873,040 $83,844,784

$8,745,794 $78,612,690 $1,073,798 $1,810,910 $1,260,333 $0 $2,636,215 $1,798,462 $95,938,202

$13,512,252 $80,971,071 $1,659,018 $2,881,792 $2,005,630 $0 $2,715,301 $2,778,623 $106,523,688

$16,701,144 $57,546,140 $2,050,546 $4,585,940 $3,073,450 $0 $2,796,760 $3,179,980 $89,933,960

$20,069,208 $59,272,524 $2,464,073 $6,486,965 $4,263,892 $3,503,064 $2,880,663 $3,602,917 $102,543,306

$23,624,325 $61,050,700 $2,900,566 $8,602,526 $5,587,931 $3,608,156 $2,967,083 $4,048,369 $112,389,655

$28,388,563 $91,133,653 $3,485,513 $11,560,132 $7,339,721 $3,716,401 $3,056,095 $4,430,434 $153,110,512

$33,417,395 $93,867,663 $4,102,947 $14,846,069 $9,284,154 $3,827,893 $3,147,778 $4,831,779 $167,325,677

$38,722,406 $96,683,693 $4,754,290 $18,489,359 $11,438,198 $3,942,729 $3,242,212 $5,253,217 $182,526,103

$44,315,642 $99,584,204 $5,441,021 $22,521,340 $13,820,170 $8,122,023 $3,339,478 $5,695,593 $202,839,471

Rental Housing For-Sale Housing Rental Housing Office/Commercial Retail Hotel Undergrund Parking Structured Parking Other Infrastructure

($38,554,476) ($43,181,013) ($6,939,806) ($6,168,716) ($4,626,537) $0 ($26,988,133) ($26,988,133) $0 ($153,446,815)

($43,530,375) ($53,815,440) ($6,975,269) ($6,489,000) ($4,380,075) $0 ($43,187,540) ($8,123,147) ($2,650,963) ($169,151,808)

($44,836,286) ($55,429,903) ($7,184,528) ($6,683,670) ($4,511,477) $0 $0 ($8,366,841) ($2,730,491) ($129,743,196)

($46,181,375) ($57,092,800) ($7,400,063) ($6,884,180) ($4,646,822) $0 $0 ($8,617,846) ($2,812,406) ($133,635,492)

($54,576,131) ($64,443,717) ($9,259,727) ($21,050,475) ($13,324,579) ($4,498,022) $0 ($2,958,794) ($2,896,778) ($173,008,223)

($29,396,292) ($36,341,851) ($4,710,436) ($10,955,140) ($6,573,084) ($19,171,495) $0 ($3,047,558) ($2,303,091) ($112,498,948)

($30,278,181) ($37,432,107) ($4,851,749) ($11,283,794) ($6,770,277) $0 $0 ($3,138,984) ($2,372,184) ($96,127,276)

($70,032,321) ($108,054,439) ($15,767,161) ($35,727,725) ($21,361,302) ($5,532,000) $0 ($2,424,865) ($2,443,349) ($261,343,163)

($42,829,496) ($52,948,963) ($6,862,961) ($15,961,303) ($8,978,233) $0 $0 ($2,497,611) ($1,075,963) ($131,154,531)

($44,114,381) ($54,537,431) ($7,068,850) ($16,440,142) ($9,247,580) $0 $0 ($2,572,540) ($1,108,242) ($135,089,166)

($45,437,813) ($56,173,554) ($7,280,916) ($16,933,346) ($9,525,007) ($22,225,017) $0 ($2,649,716) ($1,141,489) ($161,366,859)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,175,734) ($1,175,734)

Net Operating Income Development Cost Cumulative Development Cost

$0 ($153,446,815) ($153,446,815)

$0 ($169,151,808) ($322,598,623)

$83,844,784 ($129,743,196) ($452,341,819)

$95,938,202 ($133,635,492) ($585,977,312)

$106,523,688 ($173,008,223) ($758,985,535)

$89,933,960 ($112,498,948) ($871,484,482)

$102,543,306 ($96,127,276) ($967,611,759)

$112,389,655 ($261,343,163) ($1,228,954,921)

$153,110,512 ($131,154,531) ($1,360,109,452)

$167,325,677 ($135,089,166) ($1,495,198,618)

$182,526,103 ($161,366,859) ($1,656,565,477)

$202,839,471 ($1,175,734) ($1,657,741,210)

Financing Necessary Debt Equity Interest

($758,985,535) ($455,391,321) ($303,594,214) $0

($455,391,321) $455,391,321 ($6,905,107)

($455,391,321) $455,391,321 ($14,516,938)

($455,391,321) $455,391,321 ($20,355,382)

($455,391,321) $455,391,321 ($21,169,391)

($469,969,387) ($281,981,632) ($187,987,755) ($23,286,049)

($281,981,632) $281,981,632 ($21,946,930)

($281,981,632) $281,981,632 ($35,373,145)

($428,786,289) ($257,271,773) ($171,514,516) ($41,088,859)

($257,271,773) $257,271,773 ($41,214,575)

($257,271,773) $257,271,773 ($51,755,552)

($257,271,773) $257,271,773 ($49,558,728)

Unlevered Cash Flow Unlevered Terminal Cash Flow Unlevered Total Cost of Sale Total Unlevered Cash Flow Unleveraged IRR

($758,985,535)

$83,844,784

$95,938,202

$106,523,688

($380,035,426)

$102,543,306

$112,389,655

($275,675,777)

$167,325,677

$182,526,103

($758,985,535) 11.1%

$83,844,784

$95,938,202

$106,523,688

($380,035,426)

$102,543,306

$112,389,655

($275,675,777)

$167,325,677

$182,526,103

$202,839,471 $1,933,302,869 ($38,666,057) $2,097,476,283

($278,594,214)

($6,905,107)

$69,327,846

$75,582,820

$85,354,297

($121,339,844)

$80,596,377

$77,016,510

($59,492,862)

$126,111,102

$130,770,551

$0 ($278,594,214) 18.7% $298,336,716 60%

$0 ($6,905,107)

($34,663,923) $34,663,923

($37,791,410) $37,791,410

($42,677,149) $42,677,149

$0 ($121,339,844)

($40,298,188) $40,298,188

($38,508,255) $38,508,255

$0 ($59,492,862)

($63,055,551) $63,055,551

($65,385,276) $65,385,276

Net Operating Income Market-rate Affordable

Total Net Operating Income Development Costs Market-rate Affordable

Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow

Financing

Unlevered

Levered

Levered Cash Flow Levered Terminal Cash Flow Levered Total Cost of Sale Debt Repayment Capture Total Levered Cash Flow Leveraged IRR Levered NPV 10% Loan to Value Ratio (LVR)

Phase I

Phase III

$153,280,743 $1,402,584,940 ($28,051,699) $0 $1,527,813,984

2. Multiyear Development Program

Project Buildout by Development Units Rental Housing Market-rate For-Sale Housing Affordable Rental Housing Office/Commercial Retail Hotel Underground Parking Structured Parking Project Buildout by Area Rental Housing Market-rate For-Sale Housing Affordable Rental Housing Office/Commercial Retail Hotel Underground Parking Structured Parking Total

Year-by-Year Cumulative Absorption 2015 2016

Total Buildout

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

(units) (units) (units) (s.f.) (s.f.) (rooms) (spaces) (spaces)

250 200 50 40,000 30,000 0 1500 500

500 400 100 80,000 60,000 0 1,500 1,000

750 600 150 120,000 90,000 0 1,500 1,500

900 720 180 180,000 130,000 250 1,500 1,667

1,050 840 210 240,000 170,000 250 1,500 1,833

1,200 960 240 300,000 210,000 250 1,500 2,000

1,400 1,120 280 380,000 260,000 250 1,500 2,125

1,600 1,280 320 460,000 310,000 250 1,500 2,250

1,800 1,440 360 540,000 360,000 250 1,500 2,375

2,000 1,600 400 620,000 410,000 500 1500 2500

(s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.) (s.f.)

287,500 280,000 45,000 40,000 30,000 0 525,000 175,000 1,382,500

500,000 560,000 90,000 80,000 60,000 0 525,000 350,000 2,165,000

750,000 840,000 135,000 120,000 90,000 0 525,000 525,000 2,985,000

900,000 1,008,000 162,000 180,000 130,000 105,000 525,000 583,333 3,593,333

1,050,000 1,176,000 189,000 240,000 170,000 105,000 525,000 641,667 4,096,667

1,200,000 1,344,000 216,000 300,000 210,000 105,000 525,000 700,000 4,600,000

1,400,000 1,568,000 252,000 380,000 260,000 105,000 525,000 743,750 5,233,750

1,600,000 1,792,000 288,000 460,000 310,000 105,000 525,000 787,500 5,867,500

1,800,000 2,016,000 324,000 540,000 360,000 105,000 525,000 831,250 6,501,250

2,000,000 2,240,000 360,000 620,000 410,000 210,000 525,000 875,000 7,240,000

3. Unit Development and Infrastructure Costs incl. Land Development Costs Market-rate

4. Equity and Financing Sources

Rental Housing For-Sale Housing

Unit Cost ($244,884) ($387,157)

Rental Housing

($210,754)

($84,301,466)

Office/Commercial Retail Hotel Underground Parking Structured Parking

($249) ($229) ($102,853) ($46,784) ($28,554)

($154,577,492) ($93,944,973) ($51,426,534) ($70,175,673) ($71,386,035)

Affordable

Additoinal Infrastructure Costs Additional Park/Landscaping ($/SF) Demolition Costs Hardscape Land Aquistion Costs Total Additional Infrastructure Costs Total Development Costs (inkl. Land)

Public $19,881,600 $0 $1,094,632

Total Costs ($489,767,128) ($619,451,219)

Private ($19,881,600) ($274,949) ($2,554,141) $370,380,000 ($22,710,690) ($1,657,741,210)

Transit Oriented Development Grant New Market Tax Credit Owner's Equity Contribution

Financing Sources (total)

-1,657,741,210 â&#x201A;Ź

ProForma Summary

Equity Sources (total)

Loan Required Low Income Tax Credits

Amount

Value

0.30% 1.21% 38.49%

$5,000,000 $20,000,000 $638,096,484

40%

$663,096,484

% 59.66% 0.34% 60%

Value $989,047,338 $5,597,388 $994,644,726

5. Key Financials

Site Value after Redevelopment (Unleveraged Terminal Value in Year 10) Leveraged IRR Unleveraged IRR Total Development Costs (Including Land) -$994,644,726

$2,746,453,985 18.7% 11.1% $1,657,741,210

500

North Hollywood Project Total 620,000

Office Residential Apartment Condo Affordable Housing Retail Hotel Parking (Structured) Parking (Underground) Total Sum

2,000,000 2,240,000 360,000 410,000 175,000 875,000 525,000 7,205,000

Office Residential Apartment Condo Affordable Housing Retail Hotel Parking (Structured) Total Sum Price Buildable Land Price Park / Public Space Total Current Usage Retail Office Apartment Condo Affordable Housing Hotel Parking (Structured) Parking (Underground)

250

Phase II 180,000

Phase III 320,000

750,000 840,000 135,000 90,000 525,000

450,000 504,000 81,000 120,000 87,500 175,000

800,000 896,000 144,000 200,000 87,500 175,000

2,460,000

1,597,500

2,622,500

Total SF 2,135,500 574,000

Value $ 341,680,000 $ 28,700,000 $ 370,380,000

$ per SF 51.41 51.41 51.41 51.41 51.41 51.41 51.41 51.41

Total Value 21,076,447 31,871,700 102,811,936 115,149,368 18,506,149 8,996,044 44,980,222 26,988,133

$ per sf 160 50

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

7,205,000 $

Land Cost per Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Total Sum

2,985,000 1,597,500 2,622,500 7,205,000

Phase I Retail Office Apartment Condo Affordable Housing Hotel Parking (Structured) Parking (Underground) Phase II Retail Office Apartment Condo Affordable Housing Hotel Parking (Structured) Parking (Underground) Phase III Retail Office Apartment Condo Affordable Housing Hotel Parking (Structured) Parking (Underground)

250,000 280,000 45,000 30,000 175,000 525,000 820,000

Phase I 120,000

Total SF 410,000 620,000 2,000,000 2,240,000 360,000 175,000 875,000 525,000

Total Sum

2015 40,000

% of Units 50% 40% 10%

SF 90,000 120,000 750,000 840,000 135,000 525,000 525,000 SF 120,000 180,000 450,000 504,000 81,000 87,500 175,000 SF 200,000 320,000 800,000 896,000 144,000 87,500 175,000 -

51.41 $ 370,380,000

$ $ $ $

51.41 $ 51.41 $ 51.41 $ 154.22 $ % 3.0% 4.0% 25.1% 28.1% 4.5% 0.0% 17.6% 17.6% % 7.5% 11.3% 28.2% 31.5% 5.1% 5.5% 11.0% 0.0% % 7.6% 12.2% 30.5% 34.2% 5.5% 3.3% 6.7% 0.0%

153,446,815 82,121,034 134,812,151 370,380,000

Land Value $ 4,626,537 $ 6,168,716 $ 38,554,476 $ 43,181,013 $ 6,939,806 $ $ 26,988,133 $ 26,988,133 Land Value $ 6,168,716 $ 9,253,074 $ 23,132,686 $ 25,908,608 $ 4,163,883 $ 4,498,022 $ 8,996,044 $ Land Value $ 10,281,194 $ 16,449,910 $ 41,124,774 $ 46,059,747 $ 7,402,459 $ 4,498,022 $ 8,996,044 $ -

500

Phase I 2016 40,000

2017 40,000

250,000 280,000 45,000 30,000 175,000 820,000

300

400

2018 60,000

Phase II 2019 60,000

2020 60,000

2021 80,000

250,000 280,000 45,000 30,000 175,000

150,000 168,000 27,000 40,000 87,500 58,333

150,000 168,000 27,000 40,000 58,333

200,000 224,000 36,000 50,000 43,750

820,000

590,833

503,333

633,750

Assumptions:

Net Average sf Gross Average SF 1000 1150 1400 1555 900 1050 350 350

Average Size Appartment Unit Average Size Condo Unit Average Size Affordable Housing Unit SQFHotel Room incl. common area SQFper Parking Space

Phase I 1500 1500 1500

Total Number of Residential Units Total Number of Parking (Structured) Total Number of Parking (Underground)

Phase II 900 500

400

Phase III 2022 80,000

Number of Units 2,000 1,600 400 500 Phase III 1600 500

400

2023 80,000

2024 80,000

200,000 224,000 36,000 50,000 43,750

200,000 224,000 36,000 50,000 87,500 43,750

633,750

721,250

Exit Cap Rates: Office 7.00% Residential Apartment 5.20% Condo $ 380,000 Affordable Housing 5.80% Retail 7.50% Hotel 9.00% Parking (Structured) 7.00% Parking (Underground) 6.50%

Public Participation & Subsidies: Park / Public Landscaping Hardscape Underground Parking Land Distribution per Phase Lot 1 Lot 2 Phase I Lot 3 incl. Lot 4 Park Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Phase II Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Phase III Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Total SF

50% 30% 10%

350,000 67,000 52,000 220,000 203,000 96,000 42,000 15,000 167,000 51,000 213,000 69,000 45,000 13,000 7,500 79,000 45,000 83,000 48,000 68,000 33,000 86,000 83,000 2,135,500

Total

Park 200,000 51,000 96,000 167,000 18,000 42,000 574,000

Blended FAR Land Phase I Land Phase II Land Phase III

4.3 575,043 373,428 613,029

Assumptions Summary

Financing Summary

Assumptions

Loan Percentage Equity Percentage Other Financing % Phase 1 Rate Phase 1 Years

60% 40% 0% 7.50% 4

Phase 2 Rate Phase 2 Years

7.00% 3

Phase 3 Rate Phase 3 Years

6.50% 4

Amortization Rate Tax Rate

Costs of Sale

2.00%

Capture Rate

50%

0% 0% Year 0 2013

NOI Development Cost Cumulative Cost Need of Funds

2014 $0 $0 ($153,446,815) ($169,151,808) ($153,446,815) ($322,598,623) ($758,985,535)

Debt Equity Construction Debt Needed Cumulative Construction Debt Unlevered Taxes

($455,391,321) ($455,391,321) ($303,594,214) ($92,068,089) ($101,491,085) ($92,068,089) ($193,559,174) $0 $0

Interest NOI - Interest Low Income Tax Credits Net Profit

Phase I 2015 2016 $83,844,784 $95,938,202 ($129,743,196) ($133,635,492) ($452,341,819) ($585,977,312)

2017 $106,523,688 ($173,008,223) ($758,985,535)

2018 $89,933,960 ($112,498,948) ($871,484,482) ($469,969,387)

($455,391,321)

($281,981,632)

($257,271,773)

($103,804,934) ($310,480,655) $0

($57,676,366) ($471,641,936) $0

($156,805,898) ($547,851,457) $0

($257,271,773) ($171,514,516) ($78,692,718) ($549,527,665) $0

($257,271,773)

($80,181,295) ($282,258,541) $0

($281,981,632) ($187,987,755) ($67,499,369) ($292,625,727) $0

($281,981,632)

($77,845,918) ($271,405,091) $0

($81,053,500) ($690,074,028) $0

($96,820,115) ($660,783,040) $0

($705,440) ($530,717,929) $0

($21,169,391) $85,354,297 $0

($23,286,049) $66,647,911 $0

($21,946,930) $80,596,377 $0

($35,373,145) $77,016,510 $0

($41,088,859) $112,021,653 $0

($41,214,575) $126,111,102 $0

($51,755,552) $130,770,551 $0

($49,558,728) $153,280,743 $0

$0 $0 $0

($6,905,107) ($6,905,107) $0

($14,516,938) $69,327,846 $0

($20,355,382) $75,582,820 $0

Phase II 2019 $102,543,306 ($96,127,276) ($967,611,759)

Phase III 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $112,389,655 $153,110,512 $167,325,677 $182,526,103 $202,839,471 ($261,343,163) ($131,154,531) ($135,089,166) ($161,366,859) ($1,175,734) ($1,228,954,921) ($1,360,109,452) ($1,495,198,618) ($1,656,565,477) ($1,657,741,210) ($428,786,289)

($6,905,107)

$69,327,846

$75,582,820

$85,354,297

$66,647,911

$80,596,377

$77,016,510

$112,021,653

$126,111,102

$130,770,551

$153,280,743

Unlevered Cash Flows Terminal Cash Flow Cost of Sale Total Cash Flow Unlevered IRR

($758,985,535)

$83,844,784

$95,938,202

$106,523,688

($380,035,426)

$102,543,306

$112,389,655

($275,675,777)

$167,325,677

$182,526,103

($758,985,535) 11.1%

$83,844,784

$95,938,202

$106,523,688

($380,035,426)

$102,543,306

$112,389,655

($275,675,777)

$167,325,677

$182,526,103

$202,839,471 $1,933,302,869 ($38,666,057) $2,097,476,283

Levered Cash Flows Terminal Cash Flow Cost of Sale Debt Repayment Capture Total Cash Flows Levered IRR NPV Levered

($278,594,214)

($6,905,107)

$69,327,846

$75,582,820

$85,354,297

($121,339,844)

$80,596,377

$77,016,510

($59,492,862)

$126,111,102

$130,770,551

$0 ($6,905,107)

$34,663,923 $34,663,923

$37,791,410 $37,791,410

$42,677,149 $42,677,149

$0 ($121,339,844)

$40,298,188 $40,298,188

$38,508,255 $38,508,255

$0 ($59,492,862)

$63,055,551 $63,055,551

$65,385,276 $65,385,276

10%

($278,594,214) 18.7% $298,336,716

$153,280,743 $1,402,584,940 ($28,051,699) $0 $1,527,813,984

Assumptions in this Financing Model Decided to use 60% debt and 40% equity as we expect that fundraising will be difficult in this climate Assumed that interest rate is decreasing across time (since investment gets lets risky in later rounds and we can back-up our investment with our buildings, this will be more attractive/less risky and we should get lower rates.) We plan to continue refinancing of debt ad infinitum. Chose to do financing in aggregate and in phases rather than asset specific and annually for two reasons: - Financing for each segment is similar - We had best intuition for aggregate rates/amounts vs. specific research for each segment

Financing Summary

1. Infrastructure Costs by Year, Allocated by Use Types Year 0 2013 1.00

2016 1.09

2017 1.13

2018 1.16

Phase II 2019 1.19

2020 1.23

2021 1.27

2022 1.30

($309,000) ($208,575) $0 ($386,817) ($940,905) ($6,845,818)

($2,135,061) ($2,639,519) ($375,956) $0 ($318,270) ($214,832) $0 ($398,421) $0 ($6,082,060)

($2,199,113) ($2,718,705) ($387,235) $0 ($327,818) ($221,277) $0 ($410,374) $0 ($6,264,522)

($1,359,052) ($1,680,160) ($239,311) $0 ($506,479) ($303,887) $0 ($140,895) $0 ($4,229,784)

($1,399,823) ($1,730,564) ($246,491) $0 ($521,673) ($313,004) ($912,928) ($145,122) $0 ($5,269,606)

($1,441,818) ($1,782,481) ($253,885) $0 ($537,324) ($322,394) $0 ($149,475) $0 ($4,487,378)

($1,980,097) ($2,447,941) ($348,669) $0 ($737,924) ($415,082) $0 ($115,470) $0 ($6,045,184)

($2,039,500) ($2,521,379) ($359,129) $0 ($760,062) ($427,535) $0 ($118,934) $0 ($6,226,539)

($4,635,000) ($18,025) ($450,625) (5,103,650)

($4,774,050) ($18,566) ($464,144) (5,256,760)

($4,917,272) ($19,123) ($478,068) (5,414,462)

($5,064,790) ($19,696) ($492,410) (5,576,896)

($4,173,387) ($27,050) ($270,497) (4,470,934)

($4,298,588) ($27,861) ($278,612) (4,605,062)

($4,427,546) ($28,697) ($286,971) (4,743,214)

Park / Landscaping

$2,317,500

$2,387,025

$2,458,636

$2,532,395

$2,086,693

$2,149,294

Hardscape

$135,188 (2,650,963)

$139,243 (2,730,491)

$143,420 (2,812,406)

$147,723 (2,896,778)

$81,149 (2,303,091)

$83,584 (2,372,184)

factors 3%

Inflation Factor Commercial Infrastructure

Rental Housing For-Sale Housing Rental Housing Affordable For-Sale Housing Office/Commercial Retail Hotel Structured Parking Underground Parking Subtotal

Market-rate

5% 5% 5% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other Infrastructure Additional Park/Landscaping ($/SF) $60.00 Demolition Costs (1) $1.75 Hardscape (Pavers around Parks) ($/SF) $35.00 Subtotal

$0 $0 0

2014 1.03

2015 1.06

($2,072,875) ($2,562,640) ($365,006)

Phase I

Phase III

2023 1.34

2024 1.38

($2,100,685) ($2,597,021) ($369,903) $0 ($782,864) ($440,361) $0 ($122,502) $0 ($6,413,335)

($2,163,705) ($2,674,931) ($381,000) $0 ($806,350) ($453,572) ($1,058,334) ($126,177) $0 ($7,664,070)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

($1,786,146) ($27,711) ($221,685) (2,035,541)

($1,839,730) ($28,542) ($228,335) (2,096,607)

($1,894,922) ($29,398) ($235,185) (2,159,506)

($1,951,770) ($30,280) ($242,241) (2,224,291)

$2,213,773

$893,073

$919,865

$947,461

$975,885

$86,091 (2,443,349)

$66,505 (1,075,963)

$68,501 (1,108,242)

$70,556 (1,141,489)

$72,672 (1,175,734)

Other Infrastructure Costs - Subsidies Public Subsidies

Total Costs

Net Present Value of Costs

10% Hardscape (SF) 50,000 20,000 20,000 90,000

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Sum

0 ($13,277,399)

Umbrellas 53

Park (SF) Demolition (SF) 300,000 40,000 180,000 40,000 94,000 50,000 574,000 130,000

Price per Unit Total Costs 15000 795,000

2. Market-Rate Rental Housing

Assumptions: Entire Developable Land Total Development SF Land Value Inflation Factor Property Tax Other Infrastructure Costs Market-Rate Rental Housing - Current Average Monthly Rent per Unit / Gross Average Monthly Rent per SF / Gross Average Monthly Rent per SF / Net Net Average sf Gross Average sf $/ SF Exit Cap Rate Vacancy Rate Market-Rate Rental Housing - Long Term Average Monthky Rent per Unit Gross / 2015 Average Monthly Rent per SF / Gross Average Monthly Rent per SF / Net Projected Total Unit Absorption Demolition and Remediation Costs Construction Costs/SF LT Cap Rate LT Vacancy Rate Annual Operating Expense per SF Net Rentable Area

2,000,000 $370,380,000 3.00% 1.10% 5.00% $2,470 $2.47 $1.90 1,000 1,150 2.47 5.20% 5.00% $2,620 $2.62 $2.02 2,000 $1.75 $140.00 5.20% 5.0% 30.0% 87.0%

Value Based on Market Comparables

Source: CBRE EA-Advisory Outlook Multi-Housing Average SF in our neighborhood

Benchmarked current cap rate

Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates

Based on standard for rental property Standard

factors Revenue Assumptions

Net Operating Income

Inflation Factor Projected Total Unit Absorption Annual Rental Units Produced Average Unit Size Net Rentable Area Monthly Rent per s.f. Occupancy Factor Gross Lease Revenues Annual Operating Expenses per s.f. Initial Net Operating Income Property Value Property Tax (1) NOI

Development Costs

Sales

Percent Built by Year Development Costs ($/SF) Other Infrastructure Costs Land Costs Total Development Costs Units Sales Costs of Sale Total Annual Sales Proceeds Asset Value

3% 2,000

Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

2017

2018

Phase II 2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

1.06 250 250 1000 100% $2.62 95.0%

1.09 500 250 1000 100% $2.78 95.0%

1.13 750 250 1000 100% $2.86 95.0%

1.16 900 150 1000 100% $2.95 95.0%

1.19 1,050 150 1000 100% $3.04 95.0%

1.23 1,200 150 1000 100% $3.13 95.0%

1.27 1,400 200 1000 100% $3.22 95.0%

1.30 1,600 200 1000 100% $3.32 95.0%

1.34 1,800 200 1000 100% $3.42 95.0%

1.38 2,000 200 1000 100% $3.52 95.0%

$7,468,206 ($2,240,462) $5,227,744 $100,533,536 ($1,105,869) $4,121,875

$15,846,039 ($4,753,812) $11,092,227 $213,312,057 ($2,346,433) $8,745,794

$24,482,130 ($7,344,639) $17,137,491 $329,567,128 ($3,625,238) $13,512,252

$30,259,912 ($9,077,974) $21,181,938 $407,344,971 ($4,480,795) $16,701,144

$36,362,328 ($10,908,698) $25,453,629 $489,492,873 ($5,384,422) $20,069,208

$42,803,654 ($12,841,096) $29,962,558 $576,203,039 ($6,338,233) $23,624,325

$51,435,725 ($15,430,717) $36,005,007 $692,403,985 ($7,616,444) $28,388,563

$60,547,196 ($18,164,159) $42,383,037 $815,058,406 ($8,965,642) $33,417,395

$70,159,063 ($21,047,719) $49,111,344 $944,448,928 ($10,388,938) $38,722,406

$80,293,150 ($24,087,945) $56,205,205 $1,080,869,328 ($11,889,563) $44,315,642

($41,457,500) ($2,072,875)

12.5% ($42,701,225) ($2,135,061)

12.5% ($43,982,262) ($2,199,113)

7.5% ($27,996,469) ($1,399,823)

7.5% ($28,836,363) ($1,441,818)

10.0% ($42,013,697) ($2,100,685)

10.0% ($43,274,107) ($2,163,705)

10.0% $0 $0

($44,836,286)

($46,181,375)

($29,396,292)

($30,278,181)

7.5% ($39,601,938) ($1,980,097) ($28,450,285) ($70,032,321)

10.0% ($40,789,997) ($2,039,500)

($43,530,375)

12.5% ($27,181,038) ($1,359,052) ($26,036,041) ($54,576,131)

($42,829,496)

($44,114,381)

($45,437,813)

2014

2015

1.00

1.03

1,000 100% $2.62 95.0%

30% 5.20% 1.10%

100% $140.00 5%

($38,554,476) ($38,554,476)

Phase I

Phase III

($38,554,476.06) 10%

$0 2,000 $1,080,869,328 ($21,617,387) $1,059,251,942

5.20%

Net Cash Flow Net Present Value

2016

Year 0 2013

51,470,026 12.7%

($43,530,375.00)

($44,836,286.25)

($46,181,374.84)

($54,576,131.13)

($29,396,292.34)

($30,278,181.11)

($70,032,320.89)

($42,829,496.45)

($44,114,381.35)

($45,437,812.79)

$1,059,251,941.75

3. Market-Rate For Sale Housing

Assumptions: Inflation Cost of Sale Other Infrastructure Costs Market-Rate For Sale Housing Average Unit Sale Price Gross Average sf Net Average sf Demolition and Remediation Costs Construction Costs/SF LT Vacancy Rate Net Usable Area Sales $/S.F.

3.00% 2.50% 5.00% $380,000 1,555 1,400 $1.75 $160.00 3.0% 90.0% $271.43

factors Revenue Assumptions

Inflation Factor Projected Total Unit Absorption Annual Units Sold Average Unit Size Net Usable Area Sales Price per s.f.

Sales

3% 1,600

Percent Built by Year Development Costs ($/SF, includes demolition) Other Infrastructure Costs Land Costs Total Development Costs

Annual Cash Flow

2014

2015

1.00

1.03

($43,181,013) ($43,181,013) ($43,181,013)

Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value

10%

Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

Phase I

2016

2017

2018

1.06 200 200 1400 280,000 $271.43

1.09 400 200 1400 280,000 $287.96

1.13 600 200 1400 280,000 $296.60

1.16 720 120 1400 168,000 $351.32

$76,000,000 ($1,900,000) $74,100,000

$80,628,400 ($2,015,710) $78,612,690

$83,047,252 ($2,076,181) $80,971,071

($51,252,800) ($2,562,640)

13% ($52,790,384) ($2,639,519)

13% ($54,374,096) ($2,718,705)

($53,815,440)

($55,429,903)

($53,815,440)

$18,670,097

2.50%

1 $160.00 5%

Price Premium Phase II 15%

Year 0 2013

1,400 100% $271.43

Gross Sales Costs of Sale Net Operating Income

Development Costs

Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates Standard

Price Premium Phase III 25%

Phase II 2019

Phase III

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

1.19 840 120 1400 168,000 $361.86

1.23 960 120 1400 168,000 $372.71

1.27 1,120 160 1400 224,000 $417.28

1.30 1,280 160 1400 224,000 $429.80

1.34 1,440 160 1400 224,000 $442.69

1.38 1,600 160 1400 224,000 $455.97

$59,021,682 ($1,475,542) $57,546,140

$60,792,332 ($1,519,808) $59,272,524

$62,616,102 ($1,565,403) $61,050,700

$93,470,414 ($2,336,760) $91,133,653

$96,274,526 ($2,406,863) $93,867,663

$99,162,762 ($2,479,069) $96,683,693

$102,137,645 ($2,553,441) $99,584,204

8% ($34,611,287) ($1,730,564)

8% ($35,649,625) ($1,782,481)

10% ($51,940,411) ($2,597,021)

10% ($53,498,623) ($2,674,931)

10% $0 $0

($36,341,851)

($37,432,107)

8% ($48,958,819) ($2,447,941) ($56,647,680) ($108,054,439)

10% ($50,427,583) ($2,521,379)

($57,092,800)

13% ($33,603,191) ($1,680,160) ($29,160,366) ($64,443,717)

($52,948,963)

($54,537,431)

($56,173,554)

$21,519,890

$16,527,354

$21,204,289

$21,840,418

($47,003,739)

$38,184,691

$39,330,232

$40,510,139

$99,584,204

$33,792,604 12.8%

6. Office Commercial

Assumptions: Office Current Current Office Vacancy Current Effective Gross Rent / SF Current Cap Rate Office Long Term LT Vacancy Rate LT Cap Rate LT Effective Gross Rent / SF Operations and Maint Expense / SF Net Rentable Area Development Costs (per SF) Demolition and Remediation Costs Infrastructure Costs

Revenue Assumptions Inflation Factor Annual GLA Absorbed Cumulative GLA Absorbed Net Rentable Area Vacancy Factor Net Lease Revenue per s.f. Net Operating Income Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses Initial Net Operating Income Property Value Property Tax Final NOI Development Costs Percent Built by Year Development Costs Infrastructure Costs Land Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Asset Value Cost of Sale Net Cash Flow Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

14.00% $37.80 6.80% 11.00% 7.00% $43.20 35% 90% $150.00 $1.75 5.00%

Net Annual Rent per SF

Standard Year 0 2013

2014

2015

1.00

1.03

2016

2017

2018

Phase II 2019

2020

2021

2022

1.06 40,000 40,000 36,000 11.00% $45.83

1.09 40,000 80,000 72,000 11.00% $47.21

1.13 40,000 120,000 108,000 11.00% $48.62

1.16 60,000 180,000 162,000 11.00% $50.08

1.19 60,000 240,000 216,000 11.00% $51.58

1.23 60,000 300,000 270,000 11.00% $53.13

1.27 80,000 380,000 342,000 11.00% $54.72

$1,557,848

$3,305,442

$5,260,116

$8,370,685

$11,840,613

$15,702,133

$21,100,632

($2,929,740) ($4,144,215) $5,440,945 $7,696,399 $77,727,792 $109,948,553 ($855,006) ($1,209,434) $4,585,940 $6,486,965

($5,495,747) $10,206,387 $145,805,525 ($1,603,861) $8,602,526

Phase III

2024

1.30 80,000 460,000 414,000 11.00% $56.37

1.34 80,000 540,000 486,000 11.00% $58.06

1.38 80,000 620,000 558,000 11.00% $59.80

$27,098,431

$33,748,503

$41,108,052

($7,385,221) ($9,484,451) $13,715,411 $17,613,980 $195,934,436 $251,628,284 ($2,155,279) ($2,767,911) $11,560,132 $14,846,069

($11,811,976) $21,936,527 $313,378,959 ($3,447,169) $18,489,359

($14,387,818) $26,720,234 $381,717,625 ($4,198,894) $22,521,340

($6,168,716) ($6,168,716)

6% 13% 19% 29% 39% 48% ($6,180,000) ($6,365,400) ($6,556,362) ($10,129,579) ($10,433,467) ($10,746,471) ($14,758,486) ($309,000) ($318,270) ($327,818) ($506,479) ($521,673) ($537,324) ($737,924) ($10,414,417) ($20,231,314) ($6,489,000) ($6,683,670) ($6,884,180) ($21,050,475) ($10,955,140) ($11,283,794) ($35,727,725)

61% 74% ($15,201,241) ($15,657,278) ($760,062) ($782,864)

87% ($16,126,997) ($806,350)

100% $0 $0

($15,961,303) ($16,440,142)

($16,933,346)

$0 ($6,168,716)

$0 $853,478 $1,810,910 $2,881,792 $4,585,940 $6,486,965 $8,602,526 ($6,489,000) ($6,683,670) ($6,884,180) ($21,050,475) ($10,955,140) ($11,283,794) ($35,727,725)

$11,560,132 $14,846,069 ($15,961,303) ($16,440,142)

$18,489,359 ($16,933,346)

($6,168,716)

($6,489,000) ($5,830,192) ($5,073,270) ($18,168,683)

($4,401,171)

$22,521,340 $0 $321,733,426 ($6,434,669) $337,820,098

35%

($545,247) ($1,156,905) ($1,841,041) $1,012,601 $2,148,538 $3,419,075 $14,465,734 $30,693,394 $48,843,933 ($159,123) ($337,627) ($537,283) $853,478 $1,810,910 $2,881,792

7.00% 1.10%

10%

Phase I

2023

620,000 90% 11.00% $43.20

7.00% 2.00%

32.00

Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates

factors

$150.00 5.00%

28.00

($6,369,200)

($4,796,830)

($27,125,199)

($1,594,073)

$1,556,012

$56,895,794 22.00%

7. Retail

Assumptions Retail Current Current Retail Vacancy Current Gross Rent / SF Current Cap Rate Retail Long Term LT Cap Rate Operations and Maint Expense / SF LT Vacancy Rate Net Rentable Area Development Costs Demolition Costs Infrastructure Costs LTGross Rent / SF

Revenue Assumptions

Inflation Factor Annual GLA Absorbed Cumulative GLA Absorbed Net Rentable Area Vacancy Factor Net Lease Revenue per s.f.

13.70% $28.35 7.50% 7.20% 35% 7.50% 90% $135.00 $1.75 5.00% $37.80

Standard

factors

Year 0 2013

2014

2015

Net Present Value

$28.00

1.00

1.03

2017

2018

Phase II 2019

2020

2021

2022

1.06 30,000 30,000 27,000 6.10% $40.10

1.09 30,000 60,000 54,000 6.10% $41.31

1.13 30,000 90,000 81,000 6.10% $42.54

1.16 40,000 130,000 117,000 6.10% $43.82

1.19 40,000 170,000 153,000 6.10% $45.14

1.23 40,000 210,000 189,000 6.10% $46.49

1.27 50,000 260,000 234,000 6.10% $47.88

1.30 50,000 310,000 279,000 6.10% $49.32

$1,078,624 ($377,518) $701,106 $9,737,577 ($107,113) $593,992

$2,288,624 ($801,018) $1,487,606 $20,661,191 ($227,273) $1,260,333

$3,642,002 ($1,274,701) $2,367,301 $32,879,187 ($361,671) $2,005,630

$5,581,045 ($1,953,366) $3,627,679 $50,384,431 ($554,229) $3,073,450

$7,742,755 ($2,709,964) $5,032,791 $69,899,872 ($768,899) $4,263,892

$10,147,063 ($3,551,472) $6,595,591 $91,605,427 ($1,007,660) $5,587,931

($4,171,500) ($208,575)

7% ($4,296,645) ($214,832)

15% ($4,425,544) ($221,277)

32% ($6,260,080) ($313,004)

41% ($6,447,882) ($322,394)

76% ($8,807,219) ($440,361)

88% ($9,071,436) ($453,572)

100% $0 $0

($4,511,477)

($4,646,822)

($6,573,084)

($6,770,277)

51% ($8,301,649) ($415,082) ($12,644,571) ($21,361,302)

63% ($8,550,698) ($427,535)

($4,380,075)

22% ($6,077,748) ($303,887) ($6,942,944) ($13,324,579)

($8,978,233)

($9,247,580)

($9,525,007)

($4,626,537)

($4,380,075)

$593,992 ($4,511,477)

$1,260,333 ($4,646,822)

$2,005,630 ($13,324,579)

$3,073,450 ($6,573,084)

$4,263,892 ($6,770,277)

$5,587,931 ($21,361,302)

$7,339,721 ($8,978,233)

$9,284,154 ($9,247,580)

$11,438,198 ($9,525,007)

($4,626,537)

($4,380,075)

($3,917,485)

($3,386,489)

($11,318,949)

($3,499,634)

($2,506,384)

($15,773,371)

($1,638,512)

$36,574

$1,913,190

$13,820,170 $0 $191,946,811 ($3,838,936) $201,928,045

410,000 90% 7.50% $37.80

35% 7.20% 1.10%

$135.00 5.00%

($4,626,537) ($4,626,537)

7.20% 2.00% 10%

Phase I

(Blended Retail $/SF Rent = Stores, Restaurant, Bar, Grocery Store)

2016

Annual Cash Flow

Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Asset Value Cost of Sale Net Cash Flow

LT Net Retail Rent

standard Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates

Development Costs

Percent Built by Year Development Costs Infrastructure Costs Land Costs Total Development Costs

$21.00

standard

Net Operating Income

Leasing Revenues Operations and Maintenance Expenses Initial Net Operating Income Property Value Property Tax Final NOI

Net Retail Rent

Phase III

2023

2024

1.34 50,000 360,000 324,000 6.10% $50.80

1.38 50,000 410,000 369,000 6.10% $52.32

$13,328,118 $16,858,993 $20,770,497 ($4,664,841) ($5,900,648) ($7,269,674) $8,663,277 $10,958,346 $13,500,823 $120,323,292 $152,199,246 $187,511,435 ($1,323,556) ($1,674,192) ($2,062,626) $7,339,721 $9,284,154 $11,438,198

$33,599,955

Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

29%

9. Underground Parking

Assumptions Parking Long Term LT Cap Rate Demolition and Remediation Costs Development Costs SF per parking space Infrastructure Costs Expenses Monthly Reserved Parking Development Costs per Parking Spot

Assumptions

Inflation Factor New Underground Parking Spaces Cumulative Underground Parking Spaces Monthly Fees Allocation to Monthly Use Number of Spaces Monthly Parking Fee Percent Occupancy by Monthly Contracts Hourly Fees Number of Spaces Nonwork Days Daily Parking Hours Percent Utilization Work Days Daily Parking Hours Percent Utilization Hourly Parking Rate Expenses Operating Expenses (% of Gross Rev)

6.50% $1.75 $87.00 350 5.00% 5.00% $90.00 $30,450

Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates Standard Standard Standard

factors

Year 0 2013

2014

2015

1.00

1.03

1,500 70% 1050 $90 98.00% 450 150 16 70% 215 12 70% $1.20 3.00%

Net Operating Income

Monthly Parking Hourly Parking Total Parking Revenue Expenses Initial Net Operating Income Property Value Property Tax Final NOI

Development Costs Percent Built by Year End Development Costs Infrastructure Costs City Subsidies Land Costs Total Development Costs Annual Cash Flow

Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Asset Value Costs of Sale Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

6.50% 1.10%

$87.00 2.00%

6.50% 2.00% 10%

($47,045,250) ($940,905) $4,798,616

Phase I

2016

2017

2018

Phase II 2019

2020

2021

2022

1.06 1500 1500

1.09 0 1500

1.13 0 1500

1.16 0 1500

1.19 0 1500

1.23 0 1500

1.27 0 1500

1050 $1,203,061 $1,178,999

1050 $1,239,152 $1,214,369

1050 $1,276,327 $1,250,800

1050 $1,314,617 $1,288,324

1050 $1,354,055 $1,326,974

1050 $1,394,677 $1,366,783

450

$962,448

$991,322

$1,021,062

$1,051,693

$1,034,632

$1,065,671

$1,097,641

$1,130,570

Phase III

2023

2024

1.30 0 1500

1.34 0 1500

1.38 0 1500

1050 $1,436,517 $1,407,787

1050 $1,479,613 $1,450,021

1050 $1,524,001 $1,493,521

1050 $1,569,721 $1,538,327

450

$1,083,244

$1,115,742

$1,149,214

$1,183,690

$1,219,201

$1,255,777

$1,164,488

$1,199,422

$1,235,405

$1,272,467

$1,310,641

$1,349,960

($95,282)

($98,141)

($101,085)

($104,118)

($107,241)

($110,458)

($113,772)

($117,185)

($120,701)

($124,322)

$1,178,999 $1,997,081 $3,176,080 ($95,282) $3,080,798 $47,396,886 ($521,366) $2,559,432

$1,214,369 $2,056,993 $3,271,362 ($98,141) $3,173,222 $48,818,792 ($537,007) $2,636,215

$1,250,800 $2,118,703 $3,369,503 ($101,085) $3,268,418 $50,283,356 ($553,117) $2,715,301

$1,288,324 $2,182,264 $3,470,588 ($104,118) $3,366,471 $51,791,857 ($569,710) $2,796,760

$1,326,974 $2,247,732 $3,574,706 ($107,241) $3,467,465 $53,345,613 ($586,802) $2,880,663

$1,366,783 $2,315,164 $3,681,947 ($110,458) $3,571,489 $54,945,981 ($604,406) $2,967,083

$1,407,787 $2,384,619 $3,792,406 ($113,772) $3,678,633 $56,594,360 ($622,538) $3,056,095

$1,450,021 $2,456,157 $3,906,178 ($117,185) $3,788,992 $58,292,191 ($641,214) $3,147,778

$1,493,521 $2,529,842 $4,023,363 ($120,701) $3,902,662 $60,040,957 ($660,451) $3,242,212

$1,538,327 $2,605,737 $4,144,064 ($124,322) $4,019,742 $61,842,186 ($680,264) $3,339,478

100.0% $0 $0

($26,988,133) ($26,988,133)

($43,187,540)

($26,988,133)

$0 ($43,187,540)

$2,559,432 $0

$2,636,215 $0

$2,715,301 $0

$2,796,760 $0

$2,880,663 $0

$2,967,083 $0

$3,056,095 $0

$3,147,778 $0

$3,242,212 $0

($26,988,133)

($43,187,540)

$2,559,432

$2,636,215

$2,715,301

$2,796,760

$2,880,663

$2,967,083

$3,056,095

$3,147,778

$3,242,212

$3,339,478 $0 $51,376,585 ($1,027,532) $53,688,531

($29,623,367) 1.46%

$25,095,896 ($8,783,564) $16,312,332 $226,560,170 ($2,492,162) $13,820,170

8. Hotel

Assumptions Hotel Long Term LT Hotel Vacancy Rate LT Effective Room Rate LT Cap Rate Operations and Maint Expense / SF Development Costs Room Size (SF) Demolition and Remediation Costs Infrastructure Costs Ammenities / Circulation Days a Year

35.00% $140 9.00% 65.00% $180.00 350 $1.75 9.00% 20.00% 365

Assumptions

Inflation Factor Cumulative Hotel Rooms Total Rooms Completed Occupancy Factor Average Daily Room Rate

Standard Standart

factors

Year 0 2013

2014

1.00

1.03

500

65% $140

Net Operating Income Room Revenues Other Revenues Operating Expenses Net Operating Income Property Value Property Tax Final NOI Development Costs Percent Built by Year Development Costs Infrastructure Costs Land Costs Total Development Costs

Reflects additional riskiness of hotel asset class Standard Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates Standard

15% 65% 9.00% 1.10%

Phase I 2015 2016

2017

2018

1.06 0 0 65%

1.09 0 0 0%

1.13 0 0 65%

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Present Value

9% 2% 10%

2020

2021

2022

Phase III 2023

2024

1.16 250 250 0%

1.19 250 0 65% $167

1.23 250 0 65% $172

1.27 250 0 65% $177

1.30 250 0 65% $183

1.34 250 0 65% $188

1.38 500 250 65% $194

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$9,915,112 $1,487,267 ($7,411,546) $3,990,832 $44,342,583 ($487,768) $3,503,064

$10,212,565 $1,531,885 ($7,633,892) $4,110,557 $45,672,861 ($502,401) $3,608,156

$10,518,942 $1,577,841 ($7,862,909) $4,233,874 $47,043,046 ($517,474) $3,716,401

$10,834,510 $1,625,177 ($8,098,796) $4,360,890 $48,454,338 ($532,998) $3,827,893

$11,159,546 $1,673,932 ($8,341,760) $4,491,717 $49,907,968 ($548,988) $3,942,729

$22,988,664 $3,448,300 ($17,184,026) $9,252,937 $102,810,414 ($1,130,915) $8,122,023

100% ($18,258,567) ($912,928)

$180.00 5.00%

Annual Cash Flow Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Asset Value Costs of Sale Net Cash Flow

Phase II 2019

100%

($21,166,683) ($1,058,334)

($4,498,022) ($4,498,022) ($19,171,495)

($5,532,000) ($5,532,000)

($22,225,017)

$0 $0 ($4,498,022) ($19,171,495)

$3,503,064 $0

$3,608,156 ($5,532,000)

$3,716,401 $0

$3,827,893 $0

$3,942,729 ($22,225,017)

($4,498,022) ($19,171,495)

$3,503,064

($1,923,844)

$3,716,401

$3,827,893

($18,282,288)

$8,122,023 $0 $90,244,697 ($1,804,894) $96,561,826

$21,518,009

Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

25%

9. Structured Parking

Assumptions Parking Long Term LT Cap Rate Demolition and Remediation Costs Development Costs SF per parking space Infrastructure Costs

Assumptions

Inflation Factor New Structured Parking Spaces Cumulative Structured Parking Spaces Monthly Fees Allocation to Monthly Use Number of Spaces Monthly Parking Fee Percent Occupancy by Monthly Contracts Hourly Fees Number of Spaces Nonwork Days Daily Parking Hours Percent Utilization Work Days Daily Parking Hours Percent Utilization Hourly Parking Rate Expenses Operating Expenses (% of Gross Rev)

7.00% $1.75 $42.92 350 5.00%

Source: CoStar Source: Reed Construction Data Cost Estimates Standard Standard

factors

Year 0 2013

2014

2015

1.00

1.03

2016

2017

2018

Phase II 2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2,500

1.06 500 500

1.09 500 1000

1.13 500 1500

1.16 167 1667

1.19 167 1833

1.23 167 2000

1.27 125 2125

1.30 125 2250

1.34 125 2375

1.38 125 2500

50% 500 $80 80.00%

250 $254,616 $203,693

500 $524,509 $419,607

750 $810,366 $648,293

833 $927,419 $741,935

917 $1,050,766 $840,613

1000 $1,180,679 $944,543

1063 $1,292,105 $1,033,684

1125 $1,409,155 $1,127,324

1188 $1,532,065 $1,225,652

1250 $1,661,081 $1,328,865

250

500

750

833

917

1000

1063

1125

1188

1250

$445,578

$917,891

$1,418,141

$1,622,984

$1,838,841

$2,066,188

$2,261,185

$2,466,021

$2,681,113

$2,906,891

$478,996

$986,732

$1,524,502

$1,744,707

$1,976,754

$2,221,152

$2,430,773

$2,650,973

$2,882,197

$3,124,908

($92,457)

($190,462)

($294,264)

($336,769)

($381,559)

($428,734)

($469,196)

($511,699)

($556,331)

($603,180)

$203,693 $924,574 $1,128,267 ($92,457) $1,035,810 $14,797,282 ($162,770) $873,040

$419,607 $1,904,623 $2,324,230 ($190,462) $2,133,768 $30,482,400 ($335,306) $1,798,462

$648,293 $2,942,643 $3,590,936 ($294,264) $3,296,672 $47,095,308 ($518,048) $2,778,623

$741,935 $3,367,691 $4,109,627 ($336,769) $3,772,857 $53,897,964 ($592,878) $3,179,980

$840,613 $3,815,594 $4,656,207 ($381,559) $4,274,648 $61,066,393 ($671,730) $3,602,917

$944,543 $4,287,340 $5,231,883 ($428,734) $4,803,149 $68,616,420 ($754,781) $4,048,369

$1,033,684 $4,691,958 $5,725,642 ($469,196) $5,256,447 $75,092,095 ($826,013) $4,430,434

$1,127,324 $5,116,994 $6,244,318 ($511,699) $5,732,619 $81,894,555 ($900,840) $4,831,779

$1,225,652 $5,563,310 $6,788,962 ($556,331) $6,232,631 $89,037,580 ($979,413) $5,253,217

$1,328,865 $6,031,799 $7,360,664 ($603,180) $6,757,484 $96,535,481 ($1,061,890) $5,695,593

($26,988,133) ($26,988,133)

($7,736,330) ($386,817)

40.0% ($7,968,420) ($398,421)

60.0% ($8,207,472) ($410,374)

73.3% ($2,902,436) ($145,122)

80.0% ($2,989,509) ($149,475)

95.0% ($2,450,038) ($122,502)

100.0% ($2,523,539) ($126,177)

100.0% $0 $0

($8,366,841)

($8,617,846)

($3,047,558)

($3,138,984)

85.0% ($2,309,396) ($115,470) ($11,064,000) ($2,424,865)

90.0% ($2,378,678) ($118,934)

($8,123,147)

66.7% ($2,817,899) ($140,895) ($10,125,127) ($2,958,794)

($2,497,611)

($2,572,540)

($2,649,716)

$0 ($26,988,133)

$0 ($8,123,147)

$873,040 ($8,366,841)

$1,798,462 ($8,617,846)

$2,778,623 ($2,958,794)

$3,179,980 ($3,047,558)

$3,602,917 ($3,138,984)

$4,048,369 ($2,424,865)

$4,430,434 ($2,497,611)

$4,831,779 ($2,572,540)

$5,253,217 ($2,649,716)

($26,988,133)

($8,123,147)

($7,493,801)

($6,819,385)

($180,171)

$132,422

$463,933

$1,623,503

$1,932,822

$2,259,239

$2,603,501

$5,695,593 $0 $81,365,620 ($1,627,312) $85,433,901

500 150 16 70% 215 12 70% $1.00 10%

Net Operating Income

Monthly Parking Hourly Parking Total Parking Revenue Expenses Initial Net Operating Income Property Value Property Tax Final NOI

Development Costs

Annual Cash Flow

Percent Built by Year End Development Costs Infrastructure Costs Land Costs Total Development Costs Net Operating Income Total Development Costs Asset Value Costs of Sale Net Cash Flow

Net Present Value Unleveraged IRR Before Taxes

7.00% 1.10%

$42.92 5.00%

7.00% 2.00% 10%

Phase I

Phase III

($10,752,497) 6.73%

YEAR BUILD OUT

AREA(SqFt) 5,453,742 468,438

9. NOHO VIBE Proposal by Andrea Raynal and Ramya Raman The site identified by the CRA in the redevelopment plan is anchored by the end of the red line (metro) and the orange line (BRT), the site also includes a huge underutilized park, several churches and schools and owes its vibrant community to the arts and entertainment industries. Therefore, the vision for NoHo Vibe is to build upon the already existing assets of the community so that the site becomes a true Transit Oriented Development. In other words, NoHo Vibe aims to become a true multi modal transportation node and a neighborhood. The aim of the project is to integrate the entertainment and art industries into the daily lives of the community for a more cohesive, active, vibrant neighborhood that generates a sense of place within its residents. NoHo Vibe is anchored by a central courtyard acting as an amphitheater that could be used for outdoor performances by local artists, movie screenings or festivals and is linked to the existing park through a market space adjacent to the historical train depot. The market space could serve as farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s market, arts and crafts, Christmas or cultural market. The link between the existing park and bike lanes would be further enhanced by an arcade along Chandler Boulevard providing for retail and grocery stores to exhibit their products on the street to better engage pedestrian activity. (Image 2, 3, 4 - land use, green spaces & traffic) The overall plan for the area establishes a master development plan that aims to build 6.3 million square feet (residential, retail and office) in 16 years. Most of the development is focused on bringing more density to Lankershim, particularly around the metro stop, and Tujunga Avenue to take advantage of

20 YEAR BUILD OUT TYPOLOGY MULTI FAMILY RESI RETAIL OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL/CULTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE/ ENTERTAINMENT HOTEL SCHOOLS

AREA(SqFt) 5,453,742 468,438 404,340 174,801 111,426 338,200 61,112

LEGEND Leisure Activities Multi Family Resi

Public Buildings

Cultural

Single Family Resi

Restaurants

Educational

General office

Service Commercial

Religious

Public Parking

Retail Commercial

Professional Service

PROPOSED BUILD OUT IN 20 YEAR TIME FRAME FIELD STUDIES- NORTH HOLLYWOOD TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

GREEN SPACES EXISTING + PROPOSED

ANDREA RAYNAL + RAMYA RAMAN

04 06

TRAFFIC PATTERN

park views for multifamily houses. The park would also be better integrated to the city by an initiative to “green” several streets to make them more pedestrian friendly and improve storm water management, the streets receiving this “green” treatment are: Lankershim, Chandler, Tujunga, Magnolia and Morrison. Street improvements also look at introducing crosswalks, bike lanes, medians with trees and parallel parking in order to achieve a more pedestrian friendly environment. (Image 5,6,7,8) Understanding the present typology, the inherent site qualities, the lack of active open spaces and the push to make the NoHo Vibe as a destination were some of the issues looked into when evolving the program. The present conditions and performance of the real estate market was also looked into. The intent is to increase the amount of foot traffic in the site which already sees a huge amount of transit population that is due to the red line metro station, the parking lots and the orange line bus way. Large open spaces, farmer's market, pedestrian friendly streets with bike paths and scaling down of the Lankershim Blvd have been proposed to increase the inherent value of the space that serve as active community congregation spaces. The floor-area ratio across the three phases averages out to 3.37 - a density that is sensitive to the existing development structure of the community. (Image 9, 10)

09 APARTMENTS CONDO OFFICE RETAIL SERVICE APTS

APARTMENTS Market Rate Affordable CONDO OFFICE RETAIL Anchor General SERVICE APTS

07 APARTMENTS Market Rate Affordable CONDO OFFICE RETAIL Anchor General SERVICE APTS

APARTMENTS Market Rate Affordable CONDO OFFICE RETAIL Anchor General SERVICE APTS

PHASE 1 1.61

PHASE 2 1.21

3.57

4.29 5.06

2018 200.00 170.00 30.00

2019 148.00 125.80 22.20

92,000 30,000

30,000

2022 200.00 170.00 30.00

2023 61.00 51.85 9.15

LEASE-UP/SALES ABSORPTION PHASE 3 DURATION UNITS/MONTH UNITS/YEAR AREA/MONTHAREA/YEAR 0 2.82 16.67 200 0.72 8.33 100 25,000 1.62 30,000 88% Occupancy per day LEASE-UP/SALES ABSORPTION - PHASE 1 2020 2021 2022

30,000

LEASE-UP/SALES ABSORPTION - PHASE 2 2024 2025 2026

25,000

15,000

17,370

30,771 30,000

30,000

20,000

YEAR 2

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

17,000

25,000

Jun-23

2023

11,768

LEASE-UP/SALES ABSORPTION - PHASE 3 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

YEAR 7

YEAR 8

YEAR 9

100 30,000

18,630

Andrea Ramya Sankara 5232: North Hollywood Field

Phase I The intent is to have anchors coming in that act as catalysts to boost the development. The idea evolved into providing anchor retail, that the area is presently in dearth of, that would help serve the local community as well as have people coming in from the surrounding suburbs. Further within the retail typology, food retailers and department stores were looked into in the lines of Trader Joe's and City Target. As with any successful retail programming the focus was on locating these retailers on the first level of mostly residential buildings. The present scope for growth in the residential market evolved the program to include middle income market rate apartments that cater to the local Hispanic community and the young artists, who come in due to the prevalent movie industry and NoHo Arts District. The existing parking lot serves the commuters using the metro stations and other transportation services. Underground parking within the site and additional public parking a block away takes into account the number of existing parking counts along with the proposed uses within the program PHASE II Considering the vibrant nightlife and the location of the site on the Lankershim Blvd, that has the maximum amount of existing commercial activity in North Hollywood district, a bowling alley combined with a restaurant/bar is located in the building that faces the NoHo Commons and sits in the corner of Lankershim and Magnolia Blvd. The three floors above have offices that would have professional services, banks or post production units for the movie industry. More apartment units were added on to this Phase with pockets of private plazas and huge balconies to enjoy much of the Los Angeles weather. Sustainable green roofs are proposed that would be interspersed with private recreational pools. PHASE III The proximity to the park, the active plazas within the NoHo Vibe, availability of tucked in parking facilities, the proposed farmer's market abutting the existing historic train station and open green spaces would make the site by this phase to have a visible prominence in the area. Bringing in condominiums would help with the finances for the developer and would also cater to the young population that are prevalent in the area. Also providing mid-range service apartments that look to serve both as a daily or a monthly rental would help the local artists. The existing haunted NoHo14 condominiums would also be served indirectly due to the development in the site. (Image 11, 12) The core of the development is what we call NoHo Vibe which focuses on developing several parcels surrounding the metro and BRT stations. In order to fully understand the impacts of the project we focused our financial analysis on a three phase development for these properties. The project assumes the following absorption rates: 200 Apartments a year 100 Condos a year 25, 000 square feet of office a year 30, 000 square feet of retail a year Service apartments with an 88% occupancy rate 87

PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Name NoHo Commons 5400 Lankersheim Blvd Address City North Hollywood State CA

DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Commencement Jun-13 Phase II Closing May-25 Overall Duration 144 months ABSORPTION Apartment (Units/ Year) 200 Condo (Units/ Year) 100 Office (Area / year) 25,000 Retail (Area/ Year) 30,000 Service Apartments (/ Day) 88% occupancy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS RETURN MEASURES PROGRAMMING SUMMARY BY TYPE PHASE I TYPE GROSS SF % OF TOTAL UNITS Const: Unlevered IRR 18.83% Apartment 958,465 56% 609 Const: BTIRR 16.13% Condo 112,000 7% 72 Const: ATIRR 10.37% Office 107,370 6% 0 Retail 430,169 25% 0 Service Apt 114,480 7% 140 TOTAL 1,722,484 100% 821 PHASE 2 Const: Unlevered IRR 23.31% FAR CALCULATION Const: BTIRR 17.08% SQFT LAND AREA Const: ATIRR 9.92% Phase I 652700 175,320 Phase II 775734 299,024 Phase III 329110 86,267 TOTAL 1,757,544 560,611 PHASE 3 Const: Unlevered IRR 12.43% Const: BTIRR 24.45% Const: ATIRR 23.26%

RENT/PRICE ASSUMPTIONS (CURRENT) Apartment ($/SF) 1.90 Condo (Price/SF) 300.00 Office (NNN/SF) 30.00 Anchor Retail (NNN/SF) 20.00 Base Retail (NNN/SF) 30.00 Service Apartments ($/day) 98.00

Total Buildout Absorption Units/year SQFT/year Apartments 200 Condo 100 Office 25000 Retail 30000

3.7 2.6 3.8 3.37

Sq. Footage Total years Units 3034 4084783.5 15.17 1036 1368958 10.36 404340 16.1736 468438 15.6146

Total

4070

6,326,520

16.2

        

                              

      

    

                                                                  

   

    



       



     

    





    

      



 

   

             





                                                                                                  

          

  

   

                        

   

105,903 69,417 130,999

  

   

80,753 87,272 36,907 49,360 

   

UNIT SUMMARY BY PHASIN PHASE PHASE 1 Apartment 348 Condo 0 Office 0 Retail 0 Service Apts 0 TOTAL 348

PHASE 2



     

PHASE 3 261 0 0 0 261

0 72 0 0 0 72

      

    

      

TOTAL 609 72 0 140 821

            

         

         

  

        

  

                         

      

      

 

 



















 

 

 







   

   

   







    

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  

  

  

  

  













  

       



  

 

     

     

  

  

  

  

   

  

   

 

 

     

  











































        



  

  







     

     

   

 

  

                 

                         

      

    



       

      

       

 

 

     

     

  

  

      

  

  

  

  

















 

 

 







   

   

   





     

    

    





    

    

       











    

    

    

    











    

    

    

    

    

   



  

  

  

  

  

  

















  





     

 

 







  























  







       

   



       

       

                

       

     

            

    

  

  

  

 

        

      

   

  

  

  

  





        













     

     

    

    

   

   

   

   

   



       



  

  

  

  

   



  

  

  













  

  









    

















Based on these assumptions Phase I looked at increasing transit ridership by providing more rental apartments and retail to the area, we expect this phase would take five years from beginning of construction until stabilization in 2021, therefore providing an ATIRR of 10.37%. Phase II would bring additional rental apartments, retail and offices and would take 4.5 years from beginning of construction to stabilization in 2024, with an ATIRR of 9.92%, under fairly conservative assumptions. Finally, Phase II would incorporate condominiums, serviced apartments and additional retail for a total period of three years from start of construction to full stabilization generating the best ATIRR of 23.26%. The financial analysis currently incorporates a 2% contribution based on total hard costs for Public Area improvements. Additionally, in order to provide affordable housing a rental subsidy would be required from the city to make up for the difference between market and affordable rental income in Phase I & II. (Image 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

Image 19: Farmer's Market (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21974414@N02/3604485947/sizes/l/in/photostream/) Image 20: Skyline College Campus Programs (http://www.skylinecollege.edu/centerforstudentlife/programmovie.php) Image 21: The Scoop, London (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eugenegoh/7563424648/sizes/l/in/photostream/) Image 22: Urban Target (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23965&page=29) Image 23: Bowling Alley Lucky Strike (http://timandkendra.blogspot.com/2007/07/dawn-of-new-era.html) Image 24: City Market (http://www.flickr.com/photos/portland_urban_living/page2/) Image 25: Trader Joe's (http://www.popville.com/2012/07/trader-joes-official-official/#comments-section)

27 93

HARVARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN GSD 5232 North Hollywood Field Study: Suburban Transit-Oriented Town Center Redevelopment A Field Study Research Report of the Harvard Graduate School of Design Richard Peiser, Michael D. Spear Professor of Real Estate Development Lynn Richards,

2013 Loeb Fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Design Policy Director, Office of Sustainable Communities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Authors Andrea Raynal, MDes - Master in Design Studies Felix Luong, M.Arch II - Master in Architecture II Holly Masek, MUP - Master in Urban Planning Sahjabin Kabir, MDes - Master in Design Studies Ramya Sankara Raman, MDes - Master in Design Studies Susie Chung Criscimagna, MUP - Master in Urban Planning Thomas Schneider, MDes - Master in Design Studies Image Credits Unless otherwise noted, photographs were taken by students and all images and graphs related to the research were found on the world wide web.

The Harvard University Graduate School of Design is a leading center for education, information, and technical expertise on the built environment. Its departments of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Planning and Design offer masters and doctoral degree programs and also provide the foundation for Advanced Studies and Executive Education programs. Copyright 2013, The President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights are reserved. No part may be reproduced without permission.

OHON DRAVRAH

Y T I S R E V I N U LOOHCS ETAUDARG

NGISED FO

H T R O N DOOWYLLOH :YDUTS DLEIF

N A B R U B U S DETNEIRO-TISNART RETNECNWOT

TNEMPOLEVEDER