City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 19, 2024
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 18
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heather Averick, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Award Request for Proposal and enter into Agreement with Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) as the Selected Development Team for Affordable Housing on Three City-owned Sites Adjacent to Wilshire Boulevard
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP #365 to Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) for the future development of affordable housing on City-owned property at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with HCHC; and
3. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect on the environment for selection of a development team pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and find that future development of affordable housing on the Cityowned properties at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1146 Sixteenth Street is consistent with the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020100575).
Summary
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element commits the City to developing 100% affordable housing on specific City-owned sites to meet its share of regional affordable housing.
The sites identified in the Housing Element include three surface public parking lots near Wilshire Boulevard and 14th Street. In accordance with the Housing Element, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to evaluate and select a development team qualified to undertake the development of the three sites. An evaluation committee composed of representatives from several City departments and a consultant reviewed 2 of 18
proposals from nine teams. Staff recommends the City Council selection of a team led by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) based on the team’s overall experience in development, design, operations, and supportive services, including the strength of its proposal for the sites.
After the selection of a development team, the City Manager will execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the team’s lead developer to provide time for the selected team to complete their due diligence, refine the development proposal, and perform community engagement. Staff will then return to Council for consideration and approval of a ground lease and Disposition and Development Agreement involving the proposed development and the financial terms associated with use of the City-owned property.
Background
On October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element, a State-mandated plan for meeting the City’s share of regional housing. State law requires that the Housing Element include an inventory of land that demonstrates the City’s capacity to realistically accommodate new housing development at all income levels. To address the City’s shortfall of sites that are suitable for the creation of housing affordable to low-income households, the City has committed to developing 100% affordable housing on City-owned sites identified in Appendix F, Figure F-7 of the Housing Element (Attachment A).
As specified in Housing Element Program 2.E (Attachment B), by June 30, 2027, the City plans to issue at least three requests for proposals (RFPs) for City-owned sites. On December 1, 2022, the Housing Commission provided advisory input to Council (Attachment C) on issuance of an RFP for teams to develop affordable housing on three City-owned surface public parking lots located at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street (Attachment D). On March 14, 2023, the Council declared the sites as exempt surplus land, allowing the City to move forward with the RFP in accordance with State law (Attachment E). The City issued the RFP (Attachment F) on June 22, 2023.
3 of 18
The purpose of the RFP is to evaluate the qualifications, experience and capacity of proposer teams. The proposals are intended to illustrate the teams’ understanding of the opportunities and challenges presented by the three sites. Council selection of a development team is the selection of a lead developer and its proposed architect, proposed service provider, and other team members included in the lead developer’s proposal.
The selected team will conduct community outreach to solicit feedback on its development proposal. The selected team will incorporate community feedback to the extent feasible and will present a refined proposal for Council consideration and approval at a later date, as further described in the Next Steps section at the conclusion of this report.
Key Submittal Content and RFP Objectives
The RFP invited development teams to submit information about their qualifications, experience, and financial capacity to undertake and successfully complete an affordable housing development. Among other requirements, and incorporating Housing Commission input, the RFP directed teams to submit supporting narrative demonstrating prior experience with one or more of the following:
• Housing for the proposed priority population of the development • Housing affordable to a variety of income levels from zero to 80% of area median income (AMI), either rental or for-sale (home ownership) • Housing that meets or exceeds all Americans with Disabilities Act requirements
• Design that incorporates sunlight, air circulation, and/or architecture that complements the local aesthetic
The RFP also asked teams to submit designs, financing, and service plans to illustrate the team’s overall approach and thought process toward achieving the City’s affordable housing objectives. Respondents were encouraged to consider and propose approaches to replacing some of the 119 existing public parking spaces across the 4 of 18
three sites. A component of the RFP was a community involvement plan that described the team’s proposed approach for engaging stakeholders.
Discussion
The City received proposals from nine teams (Attachments H-P). Each proposer team included a lead developer or co-developers and an architect. All teams except for one included a social services provider. The teams included a variety of other partners and consultants, such as general contractor, construction management, financial consultant, property management, and landscape architect. Council selection of a development team is the selection of a lead developer and its proposed architect, proposed service provider, and other team members included in the lead developer’s proposal.
Evaluation Committee
After receipt of proposals, Housing Division staff convened an evaluation committee composed of representatives from five City departments. The committee also included a community development and housing consultant from Harris & Associates, which created a detailed application checklist and project summary sheets for each proposal (Attachment R).
Review of Proposals
The proposals were scored on a scale of 0 to 100, using the criteria in the RFP. The maximum number of points possible under each evaluation criterion were as follows:
• Development and Operational Experience (30 points)
• Financing Analysis and Capacity (25 points)
• Design Experience (20 points)
• Overall Development Concept (15 points)
• Community Involvement Plan (10 points)
The evaluation committee considered the teams’ overall experience building and operating developments similar to the proposed development scale and population, including recent experience with analogous developments. The committee also evaluated the experience of proposed service providers. 5 of 18
For the financing analysis and capacity criterion, the committee considered the teams’ ability to develop a financially feasible, sustainable, and dynamic project, as well as to build and operate the proposed project in a way that minimizes the City's Housing Trust Fund contribution and leverages diverse resources. Key considerations in scoring included the proposers’ track record obtaining non-City funding sources, such as bank loans, tax credit financing and State housing loans and grants; the amount of City funds projected to fill gaps in financing from outside sources; and the projected development cost per residence. The committee also considered the level of detail in the financing analysis and the thoroughness of financial information provided.
The architect’s demonstrated design experience with successful, completed projects of comparable complexity, scale, and nature was considered for each team’s design experience criterion score.
The committee evaluated the degree to which the proposals presented a thoughtful and feasible response to the components involving affordable housing, resident services (both for the general population and specialized supportive services for formerly homeless residents, if applicable), overall design, and feasibility of replacing public parking. Key factors for the overall development concept criterion included the mix of proposed resident populations (such as senior, large family, small family/individual, formerly homeless), the mix of bedroom counts per residence, and service staffing levels. The committee also considered the thought process behind the proposed designs, including how the design reflected community context and the needs of the proposed resident population.
The committee also considered how the teams addressed the issue of replacement public parking, as well as the potential cost to the City, since there are limited non-City public funds available for construction of replacement public parking. The proposals offered a range of parking scenarios, with most proposing to provide some combination of replacement public parking and private parking (for residents and staff, if applicable). Various types of parking were proposed, including surface parking, above-ground structure, semi-subterranean, and underground parking, including one proposal for underground mechanized parking lifts to maximize parking spaces while 6 of 18
minimizing the levels of subterranean parking. Proposers cited proximity of public transit, the anticipated need for resident/staff parking based on target population, construction cost, and physical site constraints as contributing factors to their respective parking concepts. A comparison table of parking proposals is presented in the table below.
Parking Proposals
Team
Total
Parking
Spaces
Replacement
Public
Parking
Spaces
Private
Parking
Spaces
Anticipated City
Funding Need
HCHC Base case 105 9* 96 $0
HCHC Alternative
parking scenario 157 43 114 $5,500,000
Cesar Chavez
Foundation/ Step Up
on Second, Inc.
124 46 78 $0
Abode Communities 100 46 54
$7,700,000 (including
$2,450,000 for
replacement public
parking)
Community
Corporation of Santa
Monica
86 40 46 $0
EAH Housing 83 25 58 $0
BRIDGE Housing
Corporation 79 79 0 $2,700,000
Menorah Housing
Foundation 76 76 0 $0
W.O.R.K.S/CTY
Housing, Inc. 34 34 0 $17,214,529**
Housing Diversity
Corporation 0 0 0 $0
*nose-in street parking
**financial model reflects the worst-case scenario where the project is unable to source State Super NOFA Multifamily Housing Program funding
For the community involvement plan criterion, the committee considered the level of detail provided and the depth of outreach to the proposed priority population for the development or organizations serving them (for example, seniors, families, people 7 of 18
experiencing homelessness). The committee also considered the plans’ approach to including those with barriers to participation, such as language, online access, and disability.
The scores from evaluation committee members were combined to produce an average score for each team, shown in the table below.
Team Total Score
Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) 94.9
BRIDGE Housing Corporation 90.8
Abode Communities 85.6
Community Corporation of Santa Monica 82.9
EAH Housing 79.4
Cesar Chavez Foundation/Step Up on Second, Inc. 77.2
Menorah Housing Foundation 71.7
W.O.R.K.S./CTY Housing, Inc. 59.8
Housing Diversity Corporation 39.7
HCHC received the highest overall score from seven out of the nine evaluators and scored highest in all five evaluation criteria categories (except for a tie with the team led by BRIDGE for design experience).
Recommendation
Bidder Recommendation
Best Qualified Person/Firm Best Qualified Vendor or Firm Evaluation Criteria
(include all that apply)
Training/credentials/experience, competence/skill, capacity/ability to perform services promptly, sufficiency of financial/other resources, character/reputation, ability to provide future services as needed and price.
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
Proposals Received
Abode Communities BRIDGE Housing
Corporation
Cesar Chavez
Foundation/Step Up
on Second
Community
Corporation of Santa
Monica
EAH Housing Hollywood Community Housing Diversity Menorah Housing 8 of 18
Housing Corporation Corporation Foundation
W.O.R.K.S/CTY Housing
RFP Data
Posted On Posted On
Advertised In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
6/22/2023 City's Online
Bidding Site Santa Monica Daily Press 114 6/22/2023
Justification to Award
Based on the evaluation criteria, conclusions of the evaluation committee and criteria in SMMC 2.24.190, staff recommends the selection of the team led by HCHC. The committee valued the team’s overall experience, demonstrated capability, and thoughtful, context-specific design proposal. The developer has an extensive track record in building, operating, and managing housing for low-income households and people experiencing homelessness, both of which are among the groups identified in the RFP housing objectives. HCHC’s permanent supportive housing developments include Step Up on Colorado in Santa Monica (also known as the Kaufmann Apartments). HCHC brings to the table valuable experience with developments analogous to the one contemplated in the City’s RFP. HCHC has recently partnered with the City of Los Angeles on two ground lease developments, including one in the pipeline in Venice that is to replace 196 existing public parking spaces in a shared public-private parking facility.
Established in 1989, HCHC began rehabilitating and maintaining affordable housing in Hollywood and adjacent neighborhoods, and developed expertise in creating serviceenriched housing, particularly for persons living with HIV/AIDS. Since then, HCHC has expanded its geographic boundaries and development portfolio to build a range of housing types throughout Los Angeles County. Since its founding, HCHC has developed or rehabilitated 32 buildings with two more under construction and others in pre-development. The organization provides more than 1,200 affordable homes to lowincome families, seniors, people with disabilities, households experiencing homelessness, veterans, individuals and large families. In the last five years, HCHC has completed seven affordable rental buildings totaling 458 residences. Additionally, 9 of 18
HCHC’s developments under construction and others in pre-development will add nearly 400 additional homes to its portfolio.
Collectively, the team led by HCHC has substantial experience, including in Santa Monica. HCHC’s Executive Director, Sarah Letts, formerly served as Executive Director of Community Corporation of Santa Monica. The People Concern (TPC), the social service partner, was founded in Santa Monica over 60 years ago as Ocean Park Community Center and has a proven track record of providing wrap around supportive services in permanent supportive housing communities, and working locally with extremely vulnerable homeless individuals with complex barriers to housing. TPC has a 92% housing retention rate among the permanent supportive housing residents it serves. The agency provides a variety of comprehensive, integrated services to its participants, including mental health care, wellness programs, income assistance and medical care. As one of the largest homeless and domestic violence service providers in Los Angeles County, TPC supports over 1,750 people in permanent supportive housing apartments and operates ten interim housing facilities across Los Angeles County.
Other key members of the HCHC led team with Santa Monica experience include architecture firm Kevin Daly Architects (kdA), led by Santa Monica Architectural Review Board member Kevin Daly; and general contractor Morley Builders, which has built several affordable housing developments in Santa Monica. HCHC has previously worked with the design and construction team on previous developments, bringing a track record of working successfully as a team.
After the City evaluation committee finalized its scoring of proposals and determined HCHC received the highest score, staff emailed follow-up questions to HCHC so that the organization could elaborate further on specific aspects of its experience and proposal. The questions pertained to previous success in operating housing that mixes permanent supportive housing with affordable housing for the general population; its plan for success in operating a development for the first time with TPC; lessons learned from a project HCHC currently has in predevelopment that replaces public parking; 10 of 18
community engagement success around permanent supportive housing and reduced parking; past success in obtaining State grant funds for replacing public parking and the prospects for such funds being available for the RFP sites. The questions and HCHC’s responses are provided as (Attachment S).
Proposal - Residential
HCHC’s proposed development would serve multiple populations prioritized in the RFP:
people experiencing homelessness, large families, and small families, including individuals. The proposal includes 87 general affordable residences, 40 permanent supportive housing residences, and three units for property managers. HCHC would serve as property manager for all three sites. TPC would be the lead supportive service provider for the residents living in the development’s permanent supportive housing units, providing intensive case management and connections to outside services as needed. TPC’s services would include a wide array of support interventions including mental health services, crisis intervention, individual therapy, rehabilitation and therapeutic groups, substance abuse services, life skills education, medication management, and benefits assistance. HCHC would provide a full-time on-site resident services coordinator for the remaining low income, general affordable residences.
Examples of HCHC’s services include assessment of tenant supportive service needs and linkages to physical and mental health care, adult day care, legal assistance, and other community resources to support housing stability and financial well-being.
All the permanent supportive housing units would be located on the Euclid Street site, which would also include 24 affordable residences for the general population. HCHC has substantial experience developing communities that incorporate both permanent supportive housing and general affordable units, having opened five such mixedresidency communities in the last five years. In addition, HCHC has provided resident services under a Housing Authority City of Los Angeles (HACLA) Continuum of Care contract for over 20 years in which 112 chronically homeless tenants reside in 10 different sites, the majority of which are mixed general affordable and permanent supportive housing buildings. In the last five years, HCHC reports a housing retention rate above 95% and during the prior 12 months, a housing retention rate over 98%. 11 of 18
The tables below, excerpted from HCHC’s proposal, summarize HCHC’s proposed bedroom mix, affordability levels, and target population.
HCHC and TPC collaborated on the design proposed in response to the RFP to ensure it would reflect the needs of anticipated residents as well as needs for staff, management, and security. The guiding principle for HCHC’s design is that it is “hidden in plain sight.” The buildings are six stories (on Euclid and Fourteenth) and four stories (on Sixteenth) above grade. The designs balance privacy for residents with views into and out of the properties and respond to existing development surrounding the sites.
The designs break up the massing of the buildings by incorporating substantial landscaping, private balconies, outdoor porches, and communal outdoor space such as 12 of 18
courtyards, roof decks and gardens. The buildings are designed to maximize fresh air flow into the residences and minimize the need for air conditioning.
Proposal – Parking
HCHC’s proposal illustrates two potential parking scenarios, which are summarized in the table below.
For the Euclid and Fourteenth Street sites, both the base case and alternative scenarios assume one level of at-grade podium parking accessed through the existing alleys behind the properties, as well as one level of underground parking. In the base case scenario, all of the on-site parking would be reserved for private use, with nine nose-in street parking spaces on Euclid available for the public. Should the City wish to fund an additional level of underground parking at the Euclid and Fourteenth Street sites, the proposal envisions using both the nose-in street parking on Euclid and the at-grade podium parking at sites for public use, reserving the two levels of underground parking for residents. The Sixteenth Street site, which is the smallest of the three sites, would include a semi-subterranean garage in both scenarios, and as in the majority of proposals, was not considered large enough to accommodate replacement public parking.
13 of 18
With Low-Income Housing Tax Credit funding as the only source of non-City funds available to replace public parking, the proposal illustrates the tradeoffs in terms of potential cost to the City, should the City wish to maximize parking on-site. Use of tax credit funding to pay for public parking would reduce the amount available to pay for the affordable housing, resulting in a financing gap that the City would likely need to fill with Housing Trust Funds.
HCHC’s alternative scenario assumes an extra level of underground parking to accommodate public parking on the ground floor as well as resident parking. In its proposal, HCHC cites other cost drivers associated with replacing public parking onsite, such as additional stairs, elevators, and lobbies for the public and residents.
Excavation and construction of another level of underground parking would therefore increase the development timeline and budget.
It should be noted that both the base case and alternate scenarios in HCHC’s proposal also assume the highest number of resident/private parking spaces among the proposals submitted. HCHC’s parking scenarios estimate the maximum number of spaces that could be accommodated on one and two levels of subterranean parking.
The distribution of parking spaces between public and private uses can shift based on City direction and financial feasibility. The number of public parking spaces to be replaced and how to fund public parking will be a key discussion for HCHC and the City during the due diligence period following execution of the ENA.
HCHC has gained valuable experience over the course of several years working on replacement public parking in a shared public-private facility in Venice. HCHC’s experience could inform its collaboration with the City on such matters as design considerations for balancing resident security with public access and whether the City would operate the garage or whether it would hire a private operator. HCHC team member Morley Builders assisted with cost estimation for the Venice development and would bring its current knowledge about parking construction costs to bear to the proposed development.
14 of 18
Community Involvement Plan
Should the City Council select HCHC’s development team, HCHC will solicit feedback from the community, the Housing Commission and the City Council. HCHC’s community involvement plan includes outreach to neighboring residents and businesses, and names specific community stakeholder groups, including the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition and Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors. HCHC has demonstrated success with neighborhood outreach around permanent supportive housing, citing an example from one of its previous permanent supportive housing developments in which close collaboration with the local neighborhood council resulted in design changes as well as support from the adjacent single-family neighborhood.
Housing Commission Action
Staff agendized the proposed selection of the HCHC development team for Housing Commission consideration and advisory input to Council. At its February 1, 2024 meeting, the Housing Commission passed the following two motions:
“The Housing Commission, in support of increasing affordable home ownership in Santa Monica, would like for the team members to provide specific information about their history with home ownership programming and would like, whatever team that is chosen going forward, to actively incorporate consideration of homeownership opportunities in every part of the process.” “The Housing Commission is lending their support, with caveats that this is based on the information the Housing Commission has in front of them, and that the Housing Commission has unaddressed concerns about the participation of The People Concern, to the development team that staff has recommended.” Affordable Home Ownership
While the RFP did not preclude teams from proposing home ownership on one or more of the sites, all of the teams proposed development concepts reflecting only rental housing. The lack of proposals for for-sale affordable housing is not 15 of 18
surprising, given the gap between the cost of development and the amount a lower income household could afford. Furthermore, the RFP asked proposers to provide examples and supporting narrative demonstrating prior experience with either rental or for-sale housing affordable to households earning 80% of AMI or less. None of the teams detailed prior experience developing affordable homes for sale. The team led by BRIDGE Housing Corporation referenced for-sale housing in its description of community outreach in 2005-2006 with other development partners on a mixeduse, multi-phase development in San Diego. BRIDGE also listed two home ownership developments in a master plan phase in its pipeline but did not provide targeted income levels or any other information and did not propose home ownership units in its proposal.
Designating one or more of the three City-owned sites for home ownership in the RFP would require the City to take a number of factors into consideration, including the 1) amount of City Housing Trust Fund commitment necessary to achieve financial feasibility, compared to any City funding commitment needed for affordable rental housing feasibility; and 2) identifying a development team with demonstrated expertise in successfully developing affordable home ownership for low-income households.
In the Housing Element, City-owned sites are committed for 100% affordable housing for households earning 80% of AMI or less. The amount of City Housing Trust Fund investment necessary to construct a home ownership development, and to assist lower income households to purchase a home, will be higher per residence than the typical City funding investment necessary for an affordable rental housing development. The primary sources of funding available for affordable housing development are Federal and State tax credit financing programs. Tax credit financing typically provides a substantial portion of the funds for construction of an affordable housing development.
For City-funded affordable rental developments that have been constructed since 2022, tax credit financing funded the majority of total development costs on average.
However, tax credit financing programs are limited to affordable rental housing. The Multifamily Housing Program is another commonly used program that is limited to rental housing. There are State programs that allow funds to be used for home ownership 16 of 18
developments, but since the City has not previously participated in such programs, the extent to which State programs could cover the total costs of a home ownership development has not been determined. Furthermore, specific expertise is required to obtain construction financing for affordable homes for sale, prequalify low-income buyers, and sell affordable homes.
The People Concern
The People Concern has a long track record of working with the City of Santa Monica, the City and County of Los Angeles housing authorities and County Department of Health Services and County Department of Mental Health to provide a wide array of services for people experiencing homelessness, including permanent supportive housing. TPC supports over 1,750 people in permanent supportive housing apartments, with a 92% housing retention rate among the supportive housing residents it serves. As part of the team’s proposal, TPC provided information about its experience as the lead service provider at permanent supportive housing developments at 32 sites in Los Angeles County for over 30 years, which includes partnerships with affordable housing developers such as A Community of Friends, Linc Housing, and Meta Housing. TPC is the proposed service provider for three out of the top four scoring development teams that responded to the RFP. The HCHC team’s proposal included a copy of a summary report to County Department of Health Services of survey results from tenants receiving services from TPC in permanent supportive housing. Responses indicated that tenants feel they are receiving helpful, respectful, and culturally sensitive treatment and responses. An Information Item provided to Council in 2021 compiling audits and inspections of TPC operations and facilities is provided as (Attachment T).
Next steps
Following consideration and selection by Council of a development team, staff will prepare an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) for City Manager and development team execution. The ENA will enumerate the scope and timing of the community outreach process, which is anticipated to span approximately three months and allow for public input into the design and development plan. Staff anticipates returning to 17 of 18
Council with a final development proposal for consideration and approval in the first quarter of 2025.
Past City Council Actions
03/14/2023 Adoption of resolution declaring 1217 Euclid Street, 1211- 1217 Fourteenth Street and 1146 Sixteenth Street as exempt surplus land in accordance with the Surplus Land Act
10/11/2022 Adoption of 2021-2029 Housing Element
Environmental Review
Selection of a development team and executing an ENA for affordable housing on Cityowned properties would have no possibility of significant effect on the environment, and therefore, is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Additionally, the issuance of an RFP for development of affordable housing on City-owned properties located near Wilshire Boulevard and 14th Street was analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 20212269242021] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. Development of affordable housing on City-owned properties implements a portion of that 6th Cycle Housing Element, and is consistent with the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no further CEQA review is necessary.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. Staff estimates that the potential parking revenue loss due to the closure of Parking Lots 7, 8 and 12 would be approximately $0.2 million annually. Following Council selection of a development team, staff would return to Council with proposed business terms associated with the proposed development, including terms for disposition of City land, and any required investment of Housing Trust Funds or other City resources. 18 of 18
Prepared By: Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Housing Element _Appendix F_Figure F-7
B. Housing Element Program 2.E
C. Housing Commission Meeting Minutes, December 1, 2022 D. Euclid, Fourteenth St. and Sixteenth St. Sites
E. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties - March 14, 2023 Staff Report (Web Link)
F. 1217 Euclid St., 1211-1217 14th St., 1146 16th St. RFP G. City of Santa Monica Housing Trust Fund Plan
H. Housing Element_Appendix B_Housing Needs Assessment
I. Abode Communities Proposal
J. BRIDGE Housing Corporation Proposal
K. Cesar Chavez Foundation_Step Up on Second Proposal
L. Community Corporation of Santa Monica Proposal
M. EAH Housing Proposal
N. Hollywood Community Housing Corporation Proposal
O. Housing Diversity Corporation Proposal
P. Menorah Housing Foundation Proposal
Q. W.O.R.K.S._CTY Housing Proposal
R. Harris & Associates Summary of Proposals
S. Follow-Up Questions and Answers, Hollywood Community Housing Corporation T. Audit and Inspection Summary, The People Concern (May 20, 2021 Information Item)
U. Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form
V. Levine Act Disclosure Form
W. Written Comments
X. PowerPoint Presentation